belief in Kamma and rebirth,
there is mother and father,
there is this world and the other world and
there is the fruit of giving to ascetics and brahmins?
Is my understanding correct?
But then that would mean that most (if not all) of humanity would have had this belief in a previous life to be reborn as a human?
I’m obviously missing something so if someone could point me in the right direction, I’d appreciate it. Thank you
Maybe, as long as we are careful not to limit it to the immediate previous life. Cause although it’s a slim chance to be reborn as a human from the lower realms, given the number of beings there, and the number of humans being born here, it’s just simple stats to have some of the humans coming from lower realms. As well as some humans coming from higher realms.
Only ones we know for sure coming from human realms are those who recollect their immediate past live as a human. It might be interesting to conduct a study then, to reinterview all the cases which are verified and the people hasn’t fully forgotten their past memory if they have these specific right views in their immediate past lives.
The believe that people live once or people goes to the purgatory before revived again during the judgement day is still a wrong view. It is actually not but rather they have not understand or seen the whole picture of rebirth.
Well since you’ve framed it this way Bhante, actually it doesn’t seem so far fetched after all.
Given that all beings have been reborn countless number of times over countless aeons, I suppose it is possible to have come across the Dhamma at some point in the distant past.
I’ve heard a few Ajahns say in their dhamma talks that the minimum requirement to be reborn as a human is the following of the 5 precepts…it’s interesting because all those times in the past when I’ve listened to that it just sort of goes over my head until now that I’ve read this particular sutta. I’m assuming they were referring to this sutta (or perhaps others that have this same passage).
Well this is both inspiring and depressing at the same time. Inspiring because the Dhamma is far reaching indeed. Depressing because it’s sad that I guess this knowledge of mundane right view seems to be ‘covered over’ really thick due to the number of past life experiences (much dust in people’s eyes?).
It’s kinda trippy in away, when I consider that my mum and dad would’ve once perhaps had mundane right view in the distant past. They are both fairly staunch catholics in this current life. Wow!
Well, lots to contemplate, thank you for that perspective
You’re right, the right view within the Noble eightfold path is the understanding of the four Noble truths.
There is such a thing as mundane right view, the Buddha spoke of this in one of the discourses in MN, unfortunately I can’t remember which sutta it is but I’ve read it a couple of times.
As I understand, the bit about ‘there is mother and father’ encompasses honouring and taking care of your mum and dad because they essentially gave you a life to live and looking after their welfare is both honourable and praise worthy and results in a lot of wholesome kamma.
And when you think of some (all?) species of animals, once the young are old enough and can fend for themselves (I think with snakes, once they are born they are essentially on their own) they go their own way and ‘abandon’ their parents. Also animals (maybe not all species?) don’t have the capability to distinguish their parents when they reach sexual maturity.
I’d tend to think that “right view” here means stream entry. “Attained to right view” often crops up as a synonym for entering the stream. It’s not entirely clear that that’s the meaning here (though I tend to think so).
In the Buddhist framework, would mundane right view and a currently moral life be enough to guarantee a good next rebirth? I guess one could still have bad karma from previous lives. On the other hand, it is clear the noble right view is meant to guarantee a good next rebirth. Therefore, I’d tend to think that noble right view is what’s meant by right view in this case.
How deep is conventional belief? If one is raised in a Muslim country and is a good person, one is quite likely to believe in the tenets of Islam (same for a person born in a Christian country or a Buddhist country), much to do with circumstances of birth. Would any of the above really be sufficient to always prevent a bad future rebirth? Probably something more is needed.
The listed right views are mundane right views, which are possible for people of other faiths as well, specifically, Hinduism, Jainism also has the doctrine of kamma and rebirth in them.
It’s too much to expect people to be stream winners then can be reborn in a good plane of existence, stream winners are on the way out already.
The difference between say someone who has mundane right view for many aeons vs a stream winner is that the stream winner is guaranteed no more bad rebirth. Whereas the person with mundane right view is at risk of eventually losing right view if they don’t progress towards at least stream winner, or some other kamma interfere to drag them to lower realms.
My view of it might be that maybe even the God believers might make it to heaven as well, cause they have at least the belief in life after death (a one time rebirth) and kamma (God punish the wicked, rewards the good). At least some sort of moral framework to encourage them to do good, avoid evil.
For secular humanism, they might take the golden rule as their kamma belief, and still do good.
Mn117
In this context, right view comes first. And how does right view come first? When you understand wrong view as wrong view and right view as right view, that’s your right view.
And what is wrong view? ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’ This is wrong view.
And what is right view? Right view is twofold, I say. There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment. And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’ This is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
And what is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path? It’s the wisdom—the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the awakening factor of investigation of principles, and right view as a factor of the path—in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path. This is called right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Further information about supramundane right view below
Mn9
A noble disciple understands in this way suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation. They’ve completely given up the underlying tendency to greed, got rid of the underlying tendency to repulsion, and eradicated the underlying tendency to the view and conceit ‘I am’. They’ve given up ignorance and given rise to knowledge, and make an end of suffering in this very life. When they’ve done this, they’re defined as a noble disciple who has right view, whose view is correct, who has experiential confidence in the teaching, and has come to the true teaching.”
Furthermore I infer that supramundane right view is synonymous with understanding or knowledge thus only an arahant can have supramundane right view based on this below sutta
Mn9
And what is the skillful? Avoiding killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual misconduct; avoiding speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical; contentment, good will, and right view. This is called the skillful.
And what is the root of the skillful? Contentment, love, and understanding. This is called the root of the skillful.
Here love is the root of good will, while understanding is the root of right view
But the formula becomes right view = understanding = knowledge when we consider this below sutta
An3.66
What do you think, Sāḷha? Is understanding real?”
“Yes, sir.”
“‘Knowledge’ is what I mean by this. A person who understands and knows doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit adultery, lie, or encourage others to do the same. Is that for their lasting welfare and happiness?”
“Yes, sir.”
I infer that right view alone may not help without actions based on that right view based on this below sutta
Mn130
These dear beings did good things by way of body, speech, and mind. They never spoke ill of the noble ones; they had right view; and they chose to act out of that right view. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm, or among humans.
I infer that we need to bold this part “they had right view; and they chose to act out of that right view” ,this is an “and” logic meaning if one is wrong then the statement is wrong for example when one have right view but one doesn’t act based on it because of laziness and others one may not go to heaven or human plane after death
So only beings that had right view or understanding and acted out of that view too that can reborn as human
I don’t infer that animal can have wrong view Or right view and act out of that view so they are excluded from this rule so the only way they can become human is by experiencing their deed as animal based on this below sutta
An10.219
“Mendicants, I don’t say that intentional deeds that have been performed and accumulated are eliminated without being experienced. And that may be in the present life, or in the next life, or in some subsequent period. And I don’t say that suffering is ended without experiencing intentional deeds that have been performed and accumulated.
While This below sutta is about hell beings but based on inference we can conclude that it applies to animals too
An3.36
Then, after grilling them about the third messenger of the gods, King Yama falls silent. Then the wardens of hell punish them with the five-fold crucifixion. They drive red-hot stakes through the hands and feet, and another in the middle of the chest. And there they suffer painful, sharp, severe, acute feelings—but they don’t die until that bad deed is eliminated.
I infer that there’s no obligation to them sis see this below sutta
An3.118
And what is failure in view? It’s when someone has wrong view, a distorted perspective, such as: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no obligation to mother and father.
Based on all these suttas we can infer that one becomes human either with good deeds or by experiencing bad deeds and both work
I don’t understand English much so please forgive me
That might be the answer too I guess. There definitely have been saintly people who were Christians or Muslims who would not have known anything about the four noble truths and hard to believe they would have been heading downwards in terms of karma! Yes, maybe it’s referring to a vaguer ethically upright notion of right view.
HaHa. I wasn’t trying to get any such declarations! Well, you’re in the same ordinary mere worldling boat as me then! Better set the bar low but aim high I guess (no pressure ).
And what is right view? Right view is twofold, I say. There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment. And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’ This is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
And what is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path? It’s the wisdom—the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the awakening factor of investigation of principles, and right view as a factor of the path—in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path. This is called right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path. SuttaCentral. MN117
My confusion is eliminated by the inclusion of the phrase “duties to”.
And my notion (wonder where it came from) that mundane and transcendent are distinctions from the Visuddhimagga (800 years later) is exploded.
I’ve heard this too, but I don’t think this is correct. MN 136 makes it clear that some people can perform bad deeds and still end up in a good rebirth. AN 8.36 says that someone with a small amount of virtue/generosity will end up as a disadvantaged human, while moderate virtue/generosity leads to an advantaged human….I would imagine this still leaves room for precept breaking.
I take it more like, to ensure minimum human rebirth, keep the 5 precepts well. It doesn’t mean necessary condition, but sufficient condition.
Buddhists can aim higher than human rebirth too, easily with many virtues, meditation, aim for the heavens, in consideration of the global warming destroying civilization.
I don’t think five precepts are sufficient, either, since one could end up with a bad rebirth after committing more subtle forms of wrong speech (divisive, harsh, nonsensical speech) and/or bad mental deeds (wrong view, maliciousness, covetousness). At least that’s what MN 136 indicates, as well as the sutta AdrianMagno quotes in the original post. Maybe the 10 virtues are more “sufficient” than the 5-precepts when determining the afterlife.
Perhaps it’s best to say that the 5-precepts are conducive to a good rebirth. In the AN book of ones there are a series of suttas that it is impossible for one with good conduct in body/speech/mind to end up with a bad rebirth for that reason alone…and that say it’s impossible for one with bad conduct to end up in a good rebirth for that reason alone. Good leads to good, bad leads to bad, but there is no magical formula to make any guarantees (until one is a stream winner, I guess).
I just read MN 136 and it made a lot more sense in terms of how to NOT generalize certain results and saying “well if you do this, then you can expect this particular outcome”. So thank you once again @TheSynergist
I’m curious about AN 10.177, is it perhaps a later addition to the canon? It does not seem ‘flowery’ with regards to it’s language used but after having read MN 136 I am a little doubtful now about it.
I don’t think it’s necessary to believe that AN 10.177 is a late addition. It’s just saying in general terms that doing bad things tends to lead to a bad rebirth, and vice versa….at least that’s how I’d read it. It’s not uncommon for one sutta to make a general statement that is clarified/qualified elsewhere. The MN and DN often elaborate upon concepts laid out in the SN/AN.
AN 10.177, as I read it, is mostly about the merit/efficacy of donating food to ancestors, not the nitty-gritty details about the exact workings of Kamma.
Yes, maybe it’s referring to a vaguer ethically upright notion of right view. 
).