Is rebirth essential to Buddhism?

[Rick O'Shez]

I take it that you are insisting that my view is somehow not the traditional one?

I am "insisting" that there are different interpretations. I think you are in a complete state of denial here. You really don't like the traditional many-lives interpretation and want to pretend it doesn't exist. But as I've said the only Buddhist school which clearly rejects the traditional many-lives interpretation is Secular Buddhism.

Do you know of any other Buddhist schools which reject the traditional many-lives interpretation? If so tell me which ones.

As I've explained I am personally agnostic on this issue so I haven't got an axe to grind here, I am just telling you how things are. Clearly you don't like the way things are, but that is for you to deal with. Basically you are a Secular Buddhist and you are trying to impose that interpretation on the whole of Buddhism. That is just silly!

 

[LuisDantas]

Spiny, please read my previous post carefully. I have edited it to make explicit something that I hoped not to need to say.

I am just telling you how things are.

Again: You would have to provide evidence that it is so, and you have not. So this claim of yours seems rather out of place.

(...) Basically you are a Secular Buddhist and you are trying to impose that interpretation on the whole of Buddhism. That is just silly!

I am no secular buddhist, and I find the concept somewhat misguided if obviously well intentioned. It ends up encouraging grave misunderstandings that we should instead set straight already.

 

[crossfire]

At first glance, it would seem that what you call consciousness is to a significant extent a result of perceiving circunstances and reacting to them interactively.

So it seems to me that it can be both be said to be entirely clould based and to not be, depending on how much relative weight one gives to the words "entirely" and "based",

But I find myself wondering where Mara entered the picture here. It is just not obvious to me.

Mara is associated with collective thought.
Mara is part of a class known as Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva.) They are part of the Sensuous Realm (kama-loka) and are said to live in the "air."
Mara never confronts anyone directly--only speaking through others, so this indicates a collective mentality. Also, in published material describing Tibetan creations of tulpas, the collective thought form is also called an "egregor" or a "mara." With Mara being a devas wielding power over the creation of others, it would stand to reason that Mara is when a collective thought forms "take on a life of its own," so to speak, and can overcome/influence/wield power over the minds of individuals (since Mara only speaks through others.)

 

[crossfire]

Mara is associated with collective thought.
Mara is part of a class known as Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva.) They are part of the Sensuous Realm (kama-loka) and are said to live in the "air."
Mara never confronts anyone directly--only speaking through others, so this indicates a collective mentality. Also, in published material describing Tibetan creations of tulpas, the collective thought form is also called an "egregor" or a "mara." With Mara being a devas wielding power over the creation of others, it would stand to reason that Mara is when a collective thought forms "take on a life of its own," so to speak, and can overcome/influence/wield power over the minds of individuals (since Mara only speaks through others.)

Perhaps this chart will help you to understand:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

 

[LuisDantas]

Mara is associated with collective thought.
Mara is part of a class known as Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva.) They are part of the Sensuous Realm (kama-loka) and are said to live in the "air."
Mara never confronts anyone directly--only speaking through others, so this indicates a collective mentality. Also, in published material describing Tibetan creations of tulpas, the collective thought form is also called an "egregor" or a "mara." With Mara being a devas wielding power over the creation of others, it would stand to reason that Mara is when a collective thought forms "take on a life of its own," so to speak, and can overcome/influence/wield power over the minds of individuals (since Mara only speaks through others.)

It would seem to be basically a warning against the dangers of a lack of reflection and discernment. Come to think of it, probably against a lack of courage for taking personal stances as well.

 

[crossfire]

Perhaps this chart will help you to understand:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Well, we have this chart to refer to as "places" for rebirth, as well as "causes" for rebirth here. I think it has pretty much been demonstrated that ideas can be transmitted and take "rebirth" within the minds of beings by propagating through collective thought. We also have a definition of birth including the acquisition of sense base.

Perhaps we can find further resources to understand exactly what Buddha meant by rebirth?

 

[crossfire]

Well, we have this chart to refer to as "places" for rebirth, as well as "causes" for rebirth here. I think it has pretty much been demonstrated that ideas can be transmitted and take "rebirth" within the minds of beings by propagating through collective thought. We also have a definition of birth including the acquisition of sense base.

Perhaps we can find further resources to understand exactly what Buddha meant by rebirth?

"Acquisition of a sense base." Isn't this what Mara does when a being's mind is overcome by Mara? Mara is acquiring a sense base. Does his mean that Mara is being reborn?

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.​

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Again: You would have to provide evidence that it is so, and you have not. So this claim of yours seems rather out of place. I am no secular buddhist, and I find the concept somewhat misguided if obviously well intentioned. It ends up encouraging grave misunderstandings that we should instead set straight already.

The "evidence" is that all Buddhist schools except Secular Buddhism accept the traditional many-lives interpretation of rebirth. It is what it is.

Your views are clearly in line with those Secular Buddhism, which is fine. But claiming that the views of Secular Buddhism are representative of Buddhism as a whole is just plain wrong and has no basis in fact, so I really don't understand why you are in such a state of denial on this. If the views of Secular Buddhism were representative of Buddhism as a whole then there would have been no need for it to emerge as a distinct tradition. And nobody would have bothered to read Stephen Batchelor's books!

Do you know of any other Buddhist schools which clearly reject the traditional many-lives interpretation of rebirth? If not then I don't see you have a leg to stand on here.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Perhaps we can find further resources to understand exactly what Buddha meant by rebirth?

This section from DN15 is interesting. It's very specific and I don't see how anyone could claim that this is allegorical. I have heard sceptics claim that this stuff must have been added in later, but then of course they would say that.

Name-and-form
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"No, lord."
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Perhaps this chart will help you to understand:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

As I've observed before there are repeated references in the suttas to beings "reappearing" in different realms according to their actions, which is basically an exposition of kamma. Some people choose to interpret the realms in a purely psychological way, though there is nothing in the suttas which actually supports that view.

Some people argue for a purely psychological interpretation of dependent origination but this is highly problematic when you examine the way that the nidanas are actually described. These descriptions are consistent throughout the suttas, and it's worth noting in particular that birth and death are always described as physical rather than psychological events.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

 

[LuisDantas]

The "evidence" is that all Buddhist schools except Secular Buddhism accept the traditional many-lives interpretation of rebirth. It is what it is.

It is what it is. Which does not seem to line up with what you claim it to be.

Your views are clearly in line with those Secular Buddhism, which is fine.

It is indeed fine that Secular Buddhism holds a traditional view of rebirth.

That you presume so much about how my views align with the traditional ones is considerably less fine, alas.

But claiming that the views of Secular Buddhism are representative of Buddhism as a whole is just plain wrong,

Obviously. Among other reasons, because Buddhism is, after all, a religion and tends to regard itself as such.

and I really don't understand why you are in such a state of denial on this.

If I had to guess - and it seems that I do - it may well be because you are taking as a premise that rebirth must be a supernatural belief and/or resemble reincarnation instead of being a direct challenge to that belief, and therefore you can only picture me as a "denier of the traditional view (as you understand it)".

I would greatly appreciate it if you stopped judging me so unfairly. It does no one any favors.

If the views of Secular Buddhism were representative of Buddhism as a whole then there would have been no need for it to emerge as a distinct tradition.

It is probably not a good thing that it did. It reinforces the perception that religion is something to be avoided instead of something to be cared for, healed and made healthy and relevant.

And nobody would have bothered to read Stephen Batchelor's books!

Why should people refrain from reading about other people's perspectives of the Dhamma, including Batchelor's?

Do you know of any other Buddhist schools which clearly reject the traditional many-lives interpretation of rebirth? If not then I don't see you have a leg to stand on here.

Sigh. Is it so hard to accept that I reject your understanding of what the traditional view "should" be?

There areof course many lives, but it is a serious mistake to link them by reincarnationist views and yet call that belief "rebirth", let alone "buddhism".

 

[LuisDantas]

As I've observed before there are repeated references in the suttas to beings "reappearing" in different realms according to their actions, which is basically an exposition of kamma.

It seems to me to be even more directly an exposition of Interdependent Origination.

Some people choose to interpret the realms in a purely psychological way, though there is nothing in the suttas which actually supports that view.

Some people argue for a purely psychological interpretation of dependent origination but this is highly problematic when you examine the way that the nidanas are actually described. These descriptions are consistent throughout the suttas, and it's worth noting in particular that birth and death are always described as physical rather than psychological events.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

I wonder if clearer language for describing psychological events was even available at the time and place that produced the Tipitaka.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why should people refrain from reading about other people's perspectives of the Dhamma, including Batchelor's?

I never suggested that, and in fact I rather like Stephen Batchelor's writing. The point I was making that Secular Buddhism is a very different perspective and certainly not representative of the views of mainstream Buddhism.

So, can you list any other Buddhist schools which clearly reject the traditional many-lives interpretation of rebirth? I'm pretty sure you can't, which is exactly the point I am making here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism#Rebirth

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I wonder if clearer language for describing psychological events was even available at the time and place that produced the Tipitaka.

Indian thought was quite sophisticated at the time and the suttas are full of psychology.

 

[crossfire]

This section from DN15 is interesting. It's very specific and I don't see how anyone could claim that this is allegorical. I have heard sceptics claim that this stuff must have been added in later, but then of course they would say that.

Name-and-form
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"No, lord."
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html

Continuing on with the next part of the sutta:

Consciousness
"'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?

"No, lord."

"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-and-form.

"This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness.​

This part of the sutta describes the interconnected causality between consciousness and name & form, and also describes how this is the farthest extent that we can discern for the cycle of rebirth.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Continuing on with the next part of the sutta:

Consciousness
"'....If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?
​

​

I've read this a couple of times and I'm struggling to see how this is all that different from what the preceding section on Name-and-form describes: "If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"

Do you see what I mean?

 

[crossfire]

​

I've read this a couple of times and I'm struggling to see how this is all that different from what the preceding section on Name-and-form describes: "If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"

Do you see what I mean?

There is a subtle difference between the two

from Consciousness as a requisite condition comes Name-and-Form section
If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
from Name-and form as a requisite condition comes Consciousness section
If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?​

I'm understanding the "not to gain a foothold in name and form" part to mean "acquiring sense spheres" (by which things are discerned) described in "what is birth" section mentioned earlier.

The first part is possibly describing actual rebirth, the second part is describing discernment from consciousness acquiring a sense sphere. Subtle difference.