A few sutta quotes for initial orientation:
MN38
The Buddha said to him, “Is it really true, Sāti, that you have such a harmful misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another’?”
“Absolutely, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”
“Sāti, what is that consciousness?”
“Sir, he is the speaker, the knower who experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms.”
“Silly man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way? Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause? But still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and create much wickedness. This will be for your lasting harm and suffering.”
DN15
A mendicant is freed by directly knowing this: how far labeling and the scope of labeling extend; how far terminology and the scope of terminology extend; how far description and the scope of description extend; how far wisdom and the sphere of wisdom extend; how far the cycle of rebirths and its continuation extend.
SN12.41
‘The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—apparent in the present life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.’
SN22.15
Seeing this … They understand: ‘… there is no return to any state of existence.’
Disclaimers and motivation
I attempted this post a few months ago, it was instantly closed because of an incorrect understanding that I was making an attainment claim. I had unwisely attempted levity, but realize now that levity was misplaced. This time I will avoid levity (I am as serious as death) and let me be explicit: This is not an attainment claim; I believe that what is described following applies to every sentient lifeform. If it appears that I am making an attainment claim then I have not expressed myself clearly.
I have no interest in ‘winning’ an argument or presenting ‘clever’ ideas; I wish to be free from suffering in an authentic way. It seems likely that more advanced practicioners have passed via a similar position - I am interested in their perspectives.
My beliefs have changed a number of times in my life, this represents my current point of view only. But it is my current point of view, and it seems to align with many down-to-earth portions of the EBTs. If we will speculate on things unseen we can make up literally any stories we want.
One could easily reply with some variant of “well, you’re just not far enough advanced to understand” or “just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it untrue”. Monastics are generally quick to point out that the Kalama sutta is for beginners. Well, okay. I am a beginner; this is where I’m at. I had the good fortune of Discovering Buddhism just 5 years ago, and I would like to Discuss what the next steps are.
One could also easily reply with “don’t worry about it, just float down the river, Sila, meditate etc”. Yes, and I intend to continue doing that, but if I take DO seriously then I don’t want Buddhism to be merely a side plate, some kind of aid for living a happier life.
Acknowledgement
I have found the Buddhist teachings to be the most helpful and coherant thing I’ve come across and am greatly appreciative for the tradition of monastics which have passed this on. It is also not lost on me that the very suttas and ideas which I cite have been made available to me in english by people who no doubt will disagree with my interpretation of them (whether or not they express their disagreement). Mine is not the orthodox Theravadin view and is unlikely to be popular; popularity is not my goal however - freedom from suffering is.
Admission:
I become suspicious when we have to resort to Pali to explain things. I imagine that if the Buddha were alive today, he could explain the dhamma perfectly clearly in English, Vietnamese, German or any other language he spoke. The first (and arguably best) dhamma talk I heard was the actually Venerable Robina Courtin; aside from the opening chant I don’t think she used any Pali whatsoever. She just spoke simple truths plainly.
Abstract:
It is my current belief that a large chunk of Dependent Origination is merely describing reproduction. To complete the full DO sequence, simply note that reproduction is preceded by desire (and sometimes ignorance).
Detail:
Visible in this very life, inviting inspection, we see desire leading to reproduction. This occurs while the individuals reproducing are still alive. 6 sense bases (Mother) plus 6 sense bases (Father) still only add up to 6 sense bases, not 12. Due to the 6 (x 2 pairs of) the parents senses, there is contact, feeling, desire (of the parents) and reproduction (including birth) of the successive generation. Without going to oral transmission, lineage, testament, canonical authority etc we can see plainly:
⦁ No birth without pregnancy (a.k.a. uptake of fuel, development of senses).
⦁ No pregnancy without conception (a.k.a. implanting of consciousness by the preceding generation)
⦁ No conception without willful acts (of the parent generation).
⦁ No willful acts without desire (also of the parent generation).
In modern english, we label the above sequence as “reproduction”. (In the Buddhas time, the willful act would be intercourse; in modern times it may also be medically assisted conception IVF etc, but it’s still willful acts).
There are various types of desire leading to reproduction.
⦁ I know a woman who publicly stated that her motivation for breeding was that she desires to not grow old alone. Her child was brought into the world in an attempt to avoid that.
⦁ I know another woman who repeatedly said she really did not want children. Over the span of a couple of years though, due to her mother and partner nagging her - a desire to appease them led her to reproduce.
⦁ The desire for sexual gratification combined with ignorance around birth control is obviously common.
⦁ The desire to perpetrate the family name or perhaps to ‘cement’ the marriage.
⦁ Desire to satisfy societies expectations may lead some to have children, tick the box.
In any case, it’s desire leading to willful acts, conception, pregnancy and birth. Reproduction, reproduction, reproduction which includes birth, birth, birth. Repeatedly. Sentient life, viewed as a whole, keeps suffering because it keeps breeding. Past lives were a prequisite to this life. Not My past lives, but simply past lives. The DNA we possess would not be here without previous instances. However, as I understand the orthodox Theravadin view it is that My desire somehow caused Me to be reborn; Your desire caused You to be reborn. We will potentially somehow regrow our own sense organs in the future if we want to on some primordial level. I’m suggesting that there’s a far less mysterious interpretation of DO which is simply that desire leads to reproduction. We wouldn’t be here without our ancestors. If ‘I am not this, and this is not mine’, then equally true, for the same reasons: ‘They were not that, and that was not theirs’. It’s not ‘My desire’ or ‘My Parents desire’, just ‘desire’. It’s not ‘my’ water or ‘your’ water, it’s just water. Life reproducing life, due to desire, leading to suffering. (I assume we’re all on board with the first noble truth)
This “reproduction is rebirth” interpretation seems to be (1) visible in this very life, inviting inspection and (2) fully aligned with anatta. The traditional idea however that individuals continue to desire after they die is neither visible in this very life, nor does it seem very anatta-ish. Which part of the individual does the desire stick to? It’s all anatta. In other words, to me it seems not that one’s desire causes the indivual to be reborn, but that the desire of individual(s) causes them to reproduce other individuals. If you’re a parent, I’m sorry to say, you’ve brought another being into this world to suffer. Question: if some kind of cosmic ray shot through earth tonight and sterilized all sentient lifeforms, once this present generation died out would there be any more suffering? According to me no, unless we speculate on suffering in invisible realms. If we all stopped breeding, no more suffering.
The candle:
In a Bhikkhu Bodhi dhamma talk on YouTube (I can’t immediately find the link), he used an illustration of a candle to explain rebirth with anatta. The flame from candle 1 is passed on to light candle 2 with the explanation that it’s not that the flame has ‘moved’ from one candle to the next, but that the process has continued. Okay, but I wish to extend this analogy. If we extinguish candle 1 prior to touching it to candle 2, then candle 2 is not lit. For the flame to transfer, the transfer must occur while it is still burning. In precisely the same way, for reproduction to occur, the desire that leads to it must occur before the individual is dead. This is visible in this very life, inviting inspection. Due to various types of desire, people breed while they are still alive, not after they’re dead (if we put aside some fringe cases of post mortem artificial insemination).
From another thread:
If tanha has a requisite of vedena, and vedena a requisite of phassa, then with the breakup of the body it seems very reasonable that there’s no phassa. Phassa is the coincidence of 3 things, at least one of which (the sense organs) is absent for the dead. No phassa → no vedena → no tanha. The entire sequence falls apart.
This is supported by SN12.24
‘The six sense fields are the source, origin, birthplace, and inception of contact.’ ‘When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over [dominoes of the cessation sequence follow]’
In a cafe recently, a slice of cake in the display had me in its tractor beam. I will not describe its delicious appearance here lest I cause a monastic to stumble. If I had no eyes however, there would have been no contact - ergo no desire. Right now I have a memory of the cake, which is still calling me it turns out. Once dead however, I will neither have the cake in my sight nor any memory of it. Where will my memory reside after the breakup of the body? To repeat, I am not making an attainment claim - I believe this is true for every sentient being. With death → no sense organs → no contact (experience) → no feeling → no desire → no suffering. No craving because the condition of feeling is gone, because the condition of contact (experience) is gone, because the sense organs are gone, because of the breakup of the body.
So am I denying rebirth? Absolutely not. But I am not seeing a ‘personal’ rebirth. To repeat again, I mean this for every sentient being, it’s not a personal attainment claim.
Death is not the end.
Am I claiming that death is the end then? Also absolutely not, how conceited and small minded would it be for me to think that when I personally end it’s all over. The Universe was functioning just fine before we came along, and will continue to do so after we’re gone.
SN12.15
“But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world. And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world.”
I am a collection of collections. The collection of atoms in the physical body is easy to understand I think. We have acquired body mass though munching various foods, and have lost body mass via skin flakes, hair, nails etc. At the breakup of the body, it’s not that the Legos go back to the Universe - they never left it. “My” atoms were here before me, and will be around once “I” am dead. In reality we can rightly say “this is not my body”. I am also host to a collection of ideas. In the same way as for the body, I don’t see that any of my ideas or sub-ideas are particularly “Mine”. I’ve absorbed ideas from many different sources, and lost ideas through various means. At the breakup of the mind, it’s not that the mental Legos go back to the Universe, they never left it. “My” thoughts will be around once “I” am dead; they’re not mine is what I’m saying - I just partake of them for a while. Take, for example, the English alphabet. I cannot call this My idea as I didn’t create it, can’t realistically change it nor eradicate it. By using it, in some imperceptibly small way, I contribute to it’s continuation but it will continue on fine without me even if I were to cease using it altogether. It’s an idea which will pass on through many generations. Richard Dawkins ideas on memes (the original use of the word before it was hijacked) is what I’m getting at.
Final thoughts:
- I have an equi-long spiel on what I suspect motivates people to believe that Their desire will cause Them to be reborn but I will omit that for brevity.
- I recently finished the first part of Bikkhu Sunyo’s book on DO; I can agree with all of it while thinking only of reproduction. (other than the rebirth of the individual)
- Unfortunately, I cannot rule out the possibility of original flavor rebirth. Whatever caused me to be could in theory occur again.
- I’d be super happy if I could believe in original flavor rebirth; I’d apply to join a monastery tomorrow. I can’t do that in good conscience though with my current position.
Thank you 