Beings who are reborn spontaneously

As far as I have heard all the Devas are spontaneously born. I think this is a late addition! :slightly_smiling_face: as well.

With metta

This actually reminds me of something I read in MN26. I remember hearing that thinking of rebirth as a metaphor is not accurate because the buddha was clearly talking about actual birth. I think I’ve heard Brahm and Sujato talk about this. But then I saw in that sutta the part where the buddha says something like, I was subject to birth so I was attracted to other things subject to birth. Then he lists a bunch of things that are subject to birth, but they’re all inanimate objects so he obviously can’t be talking about actual birth from a womb, but just coming from existence into the world. So I guess I’m wondering if the word for birth in that context is different than it is usually used when talking about rebirth? Or is it meant to be metaphorical in that sutta and not in the others?

Thanks for bringing this to attention…the translation on SC seems to list gold and silver only in some of the refrains. I wonder why that is? Everything else listed is actually subject to birth. I believe the repetitions are something like a mnemonic device - but did the Buddha actually deliver sermons in this kind of way?

1 Like

Oh yeah good call, I guess it is only gold and silver, but still, subject to birth?

Birth or “coming into existence” should be straight-forward for gold and other various Upadhi/Acquisitions. The reason gold and silver were excluded from other refrains was explained in Ven. Bodhi’s note citing the Comy’s explanation:

Gold and silver are excluded from the things subject to sickness, death, and sorrow, but they are subject to defilement, according to MA, because they can be alloyed with metals of lesser worth.

I dealt with this expression at some length here: 'This world and the next' - analysis of a pericope

My reading of ‘opapatiko’ is an educated guess, not established, but might contribute to the discussion…

2 Likes

jāta­rūpa­rajataṃ jātidhammaṃ

I wonder if the Buddha means gold and silver along with the other things he had mentioned are objects that come into being with birth. There is the idea of the sensual plane (kama bhava) which arises (due to causes) and along with it these objects of sensuality along with it. devas are also (some of them anyway) are in the sensual plane, and their mansions etc arise when they spontaneously appear in adult form (they have no child phase, I hear).

With metta

2 Likes

It’s interesting that devas (or maybe the heavenly realms or Mahabrahma) are not included in the list of those things that people seek that are “subject to birth” in MN26?

Are the various realms considered static with beings born into them or do the realms also come and go themselves? Does a realm exist if it has no conscious beings (currently) populating it?

Have you any sutta references regarding this @Mat

Actually , they do have children .

devaputta ‘child of a deva’ is used, but I read somewhere that this does not denote physical childbirth.

I think this is a different issue:

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world [the DO] as it actually is with right discernment, ‘non-existence’ with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world [Nibbana]as it actually is with right discernment, ‘existence’ with reference to the world does not occur to one. SN12.15

So the Buddha says he cannot deny the existence of the ‘external’ world. He also cannot deny that it does exist (or exist in the way we think it does, solidly ‘out there’).

with metta

1 Like

Yes, that’s right, the suffix here is the same as in, say, sakyaputta where it basically just means a “Sakyan”. There’s no difference in the EBTs between devaputta and devatā.

As to whether gods can have children, it seems a bit mysterious. Normally it would seem not. The passages that speak of these things, such as the Atanatiya, are mostly late, but I admit I haven’t looked at this in any detail. Anyway, it’s not uncommon for “parentage” to be independent of biology.

3 Likes

That’s a good point. Even parenting can be independent of biology, as in ‘foster parents’.

with metta

Does it mean that the deva cannot be biologically parents which “give birth” to children(by thoughts) , whereby the deva childs born spontaneously ?!

That’s right Apeiron.

@Mat

Sorry , I don’t get it .
Even if deva/devi together think(liking)of each other and spontaneously give birth to a child is not considered biological ?!

There’s probably too much into sensual pleasures to go through childbirth and bringing up children

With metta

@Mat

Isn’t that they only by looking or thinking of each other and give birth to a child ?

The suttas don’t really say anything about this.

It’s important to remember that while the basic teachings on rebirth are found in the central teachings like the four noble truths and dependent origination, they don’t really say much about all the different realms and so on. Most of what we learn about that is from narratives and verses, which often are from a later strata of the texts, and are infused with culturally bound ideas from Indian tradition. And even then, there’s still not all that much.

So there’s really little that we can say about many of these questions, at least so far as what is found in the early texts.

5 Likes