Taking a pragmatic stance to dhamma means looking at teachings in terms of the main aim ie awakening rates. Which teachings rafts can cross the flood most efficiently. All dhammas are empty, or at least ultimately get left to rot on the far shore. So a pragmatic orientation looks skillful.
In the Buddhas time rebirth teaching was a skillful means by motivating awakening. The threat of rebirth would have been a great motivation for getting off the wheel of samsara. Being reborn as a human was to invite suffering all over again. Life was harsh. Poverty, hard work, hunger, famine, pestilence, disease, crime, corruption and massacres were commonly described in the suttas.
We live in a very different world now. Many Westerners âlove my lifeâ and fear the ending. To the point of getting their corpse deep frozen hoping for reanimation. Rebirth is no longer seen as a cruel sentence. Instead its a wonderful bonus. Hell realms are conveniently filtered out.
Some modern naaratives:
Thai Bhikku âI practice Sila and chant. Sotapanna takes many many life times. Next lifetime, better kamma.â
Thai mother âI come temple with dana. Next lifetime maybe man and can ordain.â
Tibetan geshe in Dharamshala âI dont want to get enlightened. I want to help measureless beings by being reborn.â
Californian âYou mean I get to be reborn and get to be young all over again? Im going to have much more sex. You say if I do buddhism and get enlightened Im clean gone and dont get to come back? Forget it. No meditation for meâ
Western youth: âIm better behaved now Im not a Christian. I take more responsibility. Im actually more ethical. I became vegan. I dont see how believing in bad rebirth from bad karma could make me any better behaved. Sounds like buddhism is BS to meâ
Western doctor: " Ive seen lots of deaths. The heart stops pumping, the brain runs out of oxygen and they lose consciousness. Death. Its just the end. Aferlife is a fantasy for the weak. I kinda like buddhism but all that religious stuff like rebirth turns me off. I do yoga instead.
Middle Discourses 60: Unfailing
A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: âIf there is another world, when this individualâs body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. But let us grant that those who say that there is no other world are correct. Regardless, that individual is still praised by sensible people in this very life as being a moral individual of right view, who affirms a positive teaching.â So if there really is another world, they hold a perfect hand on both counts.
MN 60:12.1
Question: does rebirth belief aid or obstruct sotapanna entry in this era?
Ending rebirth is the entire point of the buddhaâs teaching. Itâs not a belief, but a reality to realize. Stream entry just means understanding and seeing the suffering of rebirth.
Itâs true people today would see rebirth as happiness, but people back then really werenât that different. The fact that people think rebirth is happiness is kind of the whole issue.
I think this is an excellent question. However, to really plumb the depths and decide what is skillful and what is not-skillful I think it must be paired with its corollary:
Does faith in non-rebirth aid or obstruct awakening?
As Buddhism has spread to the West there is a conceit that has grown which regards rebirth as an antiquated notion disproved by modern science. You can find testimony for this conceit all over this forum. I would call this faith in non-rebirth.
I would offer that this conceit is a major barrier to awakening that is equal or greater than faith in rebirth as a substantial reality. Neither rebirth nor non-rebirth is a substantially existent reality. Belief or faith in either rebirth or non-rebirth must be overcome.
I understand what you meant Yeshe but in my opinion, I think we should be extra careful and not to throw mind boggling tetralemmas around in an excess way . This question about rebirth should be answered in a clear cut manner.
Strangely, the OP has quoted Apaášášakasutta MN60 in his first post which has already a clear cut answer so I am quite surprised what he really looks for in further asking. Anyway, in my understanding, this part of Apaášášakasutta MN60 has pointed out explicitly clear cut answer:
Moreover, since there actually is another world, their view that there is no other world is wrong view. Since there actually is another world, their thought that there is no other world is wrong thought. Since there actually is another world, their speech that there is no other world is wrong speech. Since there actually is another world, in saying that there is no other world they contradict those perfected ones who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, in convincing another that there is no other world they are convincing them to accept an untrue teaching. And on account of that they glorify themselves and put others down. So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct. And that is how these many bad, unskillful qualities come to be with wrong view as conditionâwrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.
Moreover, since there actually is another world, their view that there is another world is right view. Since there actually is another world, their thought that there is another world is right thought. Since there actually is another world, their speech that there is another world is right speech. Since there actually is another world, in saying that there is another world they donât contradict those perfected ones who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, in convincing another that there is another world they are convincing them to accept a true teaching. And on account of that they donât glorify themselves or put others down. So they give up their former unethical conduct and are established in ethical conduct. And that is how these many skillful qualities come to be with right view as conditionâright view, right thought, right speech, not contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept true teachings, and not glorifying oneself or putting others down.
I donât particularly think thatâs what Iâm doing but perhaps I am unwittingly?
The point Iâm trying to make is that believing in non-rebirth can act to solidify a substantial belief in self that ends at death. Which from my perspective could act as a barrier obstructing awakening.
This may be so in one sense, yet at the same time is it possible to deny experiences?
Seems that even to deny experience is to confirm it.
So whatever the âsubstantial realityâ may or may not be, there is the fact of conditional experiences â which are anicca, dukkha, anattÄ.
Rebirth is simply a continuation of conditional experiences due to causes and conditions.
End those causes and conditions and, like depriving a fire of fuel, experiences cease. Yes?
It doesnât matter whether there is âsubstantial realityâ or not. Experiences canât be denied.
Or am I misunderstanding your assertion about :âsubstantial realityâ?
Please be assured Iâm not trying to deny experience. I do not deny the experience of being a human being who was born and grew up and continually goes through life from moment to moment seemingly as the same substantially existent person. I share this experience as a lowly being and cannot deny it.
However, when I look and analyze this experience it begins to dissolve and the substantially existent part appears more and more illusion like. There are many meditations available for accomplishing this analysis and the experience of the dissolution into illusion like appearance.
Just as I have this experience from moment to moment in life that canât be denied yet can be revealed to be illusion like upon analysis, just so the experience of rebirth. It isnât substantially real any more than this experience from moment to moment. Analysis reveals this. How can anything substantial move from life to life if it canât even move moment to moment?
I have not gained this impression from the suttas. To the contrary, the suttas include:
Then it occurred to me, âThis principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. But people like clinging, they love it and enjoy it. Itâs hard for them to see this topic; that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination. The Buddha identifies the two most difficult topics in his philosophy: dependent origination and Nibbana. Itâs also hard for them to see this topic; that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment. And if I were to teach the Dhamma, others might not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me.
MN 26
MN 60 is addressed to householders and is for good conduct by way of body, speech and mind. MN 117 says those very teachings in MN 60 do not lead to awakening but are for good deeds. If you believe you will be reborn and if you think you donât like being reborn; the mind still must get rid of the concept of âyouâ or âIâ to cease rebirth. Awakening is the ending of the concept of self. How can the concept of self end if the mind keeps thinking âIâ & âyouâ will be reborn?
Ajahn Achalo made an insightful comment about the subject of belief in rebirth/kamma/other realms, etc. in his book The Process of Realisation, p. 138. I hope itâs helpful for someone.
Thanks. Sounds kinda Abhidhammic but I think I know what youâre pointing to. Also sounds like out of the Mahayana â not to say anything negative about this. Just saying the Buddha doesnât mention âpresent momentâ in the NikÄyas.
Also, it depends on what we mean by âsubstantialâ and âillusion.â
The Buddha said dukkha was real. But since it canât be pinned down to an essence does that make it an illusion?
Can illusions be direct experiences of heart attacks?
Abstract words like âillusionâ, ârealityâ, âsubstantialâ seem to create more disagreements than agreements. So I may be interpreting these words differently than you are.
The Teacher did use these words in many suttas. Well, thatâs not quite precise. Rather, many translators have used these english words as renderings of the Teacherâs words in sutta. I donât think they are particularly abstract. I think the disagreements often come about because of attachment to sakkÄyadiášášhi.
Iâm trying to use them in the same way as one of my favorite sutta:
âForm is like a lump of foam;
feeling is like a bubble;
perception seems like a mirage;
choices like a banana tree;
and consciousness like a magic trick:
so taught the kinsman of the Sun.
However you contemplate them,
examining them carefully,
theyâre vacuous and hollow
when you look at them closely.â
Thanks.
Notice how the Buddha uses similes in SN22.95 rather than making ontological assertions about âoutsideâ reality.
The khandhas âexistâ as experiences.
My point is that while âthingsâ and experiences may have no essential core or essence, theyâre really-real as direct: experiences.
Do we agree on that assertion?
And all experiences, being causes and conditions, are dukkha.
(I know we donât agree on this one).
Yep, I notice. I use âillusion likeâ to also avoid making an ontological assertion. No ontological assertions were intended by me.
Experiences are experienced. I do not deny that I too experience being a lowly being and that many of my experiences are unsatisfactory.
However, when I heed the Teacherâs advice and contemplate those experiences carefully, examining them closely, the more vacuous, hollow and insubstantial they are. They are illusion-like much like the experience of contemplating and examining a lump of foam, a bubble, a mirage, a banana tree or a magic trick. The more carefully and exhaustively they are examined they dissolve and do not appear really real at all.
I can only guess what you mean by the adjective really real, but to me it sounds like an adjective that can only properly be applied to something that does not appear more and more vacuous, hollow, and substantial the more carefully it is examined.
I have yet to find a conditioned thing that stands up to this kind of analysis and emerges unscathed as non-vacuous, non-hollow, and substantial aka really real.
I think weâre in more agreement than it may seem.
We agree that experiences and âthingsâ like the senses and khandhas have no essence and or core â âhollowâ as you say.
My only point is that experiences are real because experiences are: experienced.
I think we agree here too.
The contemplation you speak of helps the mind to let go of what canât be clung to anyway. Yes?
Since experiences are anicca, dukkha, anattÄ theyâre dukkha, becauseâŚsee the first part of this sentence.
Yeshe, if I understand you correctly: do you only (or at least) consider NibbÄna as having essence, inherently exists, really real? Or maybe NibbÄna also fails to your kind of analysis?
I donât think any thing has essence, inherently exists, or is really real. I donât think NibbÄna is a thing or attempt to describe NibbÄna beyond what the Teacher said because:
It risks proliferating the unproliferated
Iâm just a lowly being so how would I know what NibbÄna is?
One nice advantage about being just a lowly being is not having to answer what NibbÄna is because ⌠how would I know. A lowly being equals freedom from having to answer what Nibbana is
Thanks for sharing your lack of clarity. The sutta doesnât speak to the question posed in the first post. If you want to clear your confusion, please reconsider the bottom line of the first post: Question: does rebirth belief aid or obstruct sotapanna entry in this era?
In terms of explaining the choice of the MH 60 quote and what it might show:
The post was not about whether rebirth is real or not. The sutta selection shows the initial post reinforces the endemic teaching on rebirth throughout the nikaya.
The quote shows the Teacher using a skillful means with a pragmatic stance. Belief in rebirth or not, is redundant in terms of achieving a good rebirth, when an ethical life is lived. No point in trying to convert those who wont believe in rebirth. Its actions that matter, not belief. Those with Abrahamic religious conditioning where faith is held as pivotal to salvation, may find this pragmatic stance hard to understand.
The passage raises similar pragmatic questions about rebirth belief and awakening to sotapanna. Might this also be redundant?
Good day ,Hello @Jara personally i look into these issue from this perspective
1)There are birth-rebirth ( with all the consequences of birth-rebirth one experiences endlessly, from one life existance to the others.)
2)these are reason for birth-rebirth ( examine it closely , wow these are the FUEL, the reason that causing perpetual rebirth-birth yikes!!
3)This birth-rebirth fuel can be stopped ( Oh yes ).
4)These are Path leadings towards, cessation of the fuel, ending perpetual Birth-rebirth. -The Noble Eightfold path
(Oh yay this is the way out from this endless Samsaric Journey.)
This belief in rebirth aids me on my spiritual journey. After contemplation and investigation into the drawbacks, dangers, and weariness of birth and rebirth, I am now using it as a tool to cultivate Samvegacitta. This, in turn, serves as a foundation for generating Viriya (energy, diligence, enthusiasm, and effort), leading me toward the learning and practice of the Noble Eightfold Path, ultimately aiding in the entry to Sotapanna.
. This question about rebirth should be answered in a clear cut manner.
I donât particularly think thatâs what Iâm doing but perhaps I am unwittingly? 
