Well said. I had not considered the implications of Jiva being synonymous with citta in that sutta, thanks for pointing it out.
Please quote Sutta on this.
Buddha never tried to convince anyone or noble devotees about believing in rebirth and kamma. But they are good to know (or as FYI = for your information only), not important to actual practice here and now.
Just read AN 3.65 Kalama Sutta.
…
When that noble devotee has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, uncorrupted and purified, they’ve won four consolations in the present life.‘If it turns out there is another world, and good and bad deeds have a result, then—when the body breaks up, after death—I’ll be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ This is the first consolation they’ve won.
‘If it turns out there is no other world, and good and bad deeds don’t have a result, then in the present life I’ll keep myself free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy.’ This is the second consolation they’ve won.
‘If it turns out that bad things happen to people who do bad things, then since I have no bad intentions, and since I’m not doing anything bad, how can suffering touch me?’ This is the third consolation they’ve won.
‘If it turns out that bad things don’t happen to people who do bad things, then I still see myself pure on both sides.’ This is the fourth consolation they’ve won.
When that noble devotee has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, undefiled and purified, they’ve won these four consolations in the present life.”
…
Actually anyone who believe and focus in rebirth will never get into the stream. Let alone reach samadhi.
For more details, read MN 2 Sabbasava Sutta, MN 38 MahaTanhaSankaya Sutta, and MN 117 Great forty.
But one who focuses on 4 noble truth and practices noble 8fold path here and now. They might be able to enter the stream and reach other awakening level here and now (no need to wait).
2 Likes
Seeing how divisive a topic rebirth is, do you really think the Buddha today would walk around breaking the minds of his followers, dismissing lay followers, insisting in what must be perceived by these people as a view (not truth)?
Of course not. He would have found a way to arouse the longing for liberation regardless of the belief in rebirth. He would have either found practices that bring about insight into or conviction of rebirth naturally and then teach it. Or he would have found ways to teach liberation without rebirth altogether.
Don’t forget how much the Buddha took social circumstances into account when he was teaching. Of course I don’t know what and how he would have taught in such an environment, but I’m certain that he was not argumentative and would have found a way.
6 Likes
It wasn’t divisive until and unless westerners will materialism tried to twist Buddha’s words into things consistent with their believes
2 Likes
Please read previous answers before asking us to quote sources already quoted above. Secular Buddhists represents scientism - #37 by Tusbuddha
1 Like
Hm… quoting MN 9 Samma Ditthi Sutta interesting.
Do you understand what birth (jati) in this MN 9 refer to?
Actually, do you even understand how right view can arise for any humans/beings?
1 Like
Jeez, please mind the language. Also please check if your mindset is about “winning” and “I will show them!”.
Also, (much) shorter posts are more likely to be read… 
1 Like
I am calling the logic stupid not the people. I am sorry for that if you guys found it offensive.
2 Likes
Hmm that sounds like ad hominem and not a question. But since I already posted a long answer explaning my position above, I think you wouldn’t want to read even if I give an answer again
1 Like
I did quick search of the word right view, don’t see the conditions mentioned.
As long as one is still conditioned by the 6 senses, one will never be free unfortunately. Easy way out is always five senses first, then the thoughts.
Good luck anyway with your path.
1 Like
Good luck to you as well on your path and may you become stream enterer quickly
Good point @Tusbuddha.
For me this sutta’s explains the right view of a noble, noble right view. For me it comes down to a total understanding from realisation. The wisdom faculty is brought to max. It is not a kind of intellectual understanding of 4 noble truth, food, Paticca Samuppada etc. No, it is all seen and really realised.
That is the difference between this noble right view and mundane right view, i belief.
This noble right view is connected with the goal of Nibbana. I feel these views in MN9 is the Noble right view described earlier above as:
“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”.
Do you agree?
The view there is an afterlife is different. It is profitable to view things that way. Even if one has no direct knowledge of afterlife is it good to view it that way there is afterlife, etc. This is an intellectual kind of knowing, like a worldview. Yes, and the sutta’s clearly state that there are worldviews, like materialism, that are really not profitable and not connected with merit. Note, that all the mundane wrong views Buddha described were exactly the views Kesakambali taught to the world. He was considered to be a materialist.
The sutta’s make clear that one has to drop such wrong mundane views and embrace the worldview of rebirth etc. Why?
Views are very important because based on views there arises a certain intention, speech, acts. It is said that if the view is wrong…" whatever bodily, verbal, or mental deeds they undertake in line with that view, their intentions, aims, wishes, and choices all lead to what is unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable, harmful, and suffering"
(AN1.314, see also AN1.315)
That is a very strong statement, right?
So, i belief we must understand this statement to see why we need right views.
I do not really question that there is something like re-birth, a continuation, an afterlife. I also do not question that even the knowledege of emancipation is not different from the knowledge that 're-birth has ended…etc. Many sutta’s describe this. In some way, one, apparantly knows that re-birth as ended when the heart is purified, totally.
But i still think that one can also practice the dhamma, purifying ones heart, developing love and wisdom, in a way that rebirth and a beginningless and endless samsara, are not such a motivational forces.
3 Likes
I have learned this is also described in Abhidhamma. Sutta’s also describe this.
Because there is a correlation between taking birth in a certain mental state in real time and after death. Many sutta’s describe this mechanism.
People, for example, in the time of the Buddha choose to live as cows or dogs and developed all dog- and cowlike mentallity and behaviour. They thought this would lead to heaven. Buddha made clear that if one as a human in real time takes on all the habits and mentallities of a cow or dog, one will be born among cows and dogs! So, what one does and feeds in real time is very important because it shapes, as it were, the future.
Sutta’s describe also positive connections between real time birth and birth after death. For example, if one develops jhana in this very life, one in real time gets a taste of how deva existence is. And if one does not loose this abillity to enter jhana at death, because of the strong kamma of jhana, one will be born among deva’s. Here again this correspondance between taking birth in real time and after death.
So, this correspondence between birth in real time and after death is, i belief, part of the basics of Buddha-Dhamma, especially on kamma and rebirth.
If one does not take birth anymore in real time due to an absent grasping at habitual forces like hate and greed, well then there is in real time no becoming anymore, no birth, no decay of what would otherwise be born, no dying of what otherwise would be born when there would be grasping.
3 Likes
no I still have craving which sources duality of like and dislike
I have delusion too I focus on gratification instead of drawback of conditioned phenomena
but could the advance teaching be taught without basic teaching ?
and what’s the enlightenment if not the ending of greed,hate and delusion ?
and I don’t find there’s relationship between the ending of greed,hate and delusion with believing or not believing in rebirth and kamma, there’s no correlation at all, delusion is if we crave the conditioned and not knowing the drawback of impermanence of the conditioned and the escape of the conditioned which is cessation of that very craving and not knowing that cessation of suffering could be achieved by cessation of craving
people could be free of greed,hate and delusion without even believing in rebirth and kamma hence no need to understand rebirth and kamma, it may help us but it’s not necessary to us
people could be free from greed,hate and delusion for 1 mind moment or 1 planksecond but they still can’t be called as freed, it’s the permanent non arising of greed,hate and delusion that Buddha means in suttas when declared someone is arahant
that’s my current understanding
much metta 
1 Like
Hi @Donabedian, thank you for your reply to explain precisely in clear terms your understanding of the First Noble Truth about Suffering.
Taking your above understanding of the First Noble Truth, could you please again, explain precisely in clear terms in max 500 words:
How to properly respond to the criticism from the 3 following types of people:
-
People who believe in the same understanding of the First Noble Truth as you do above: Instead of choosing to solve the problem of dukkha by eradicating craving and clinging, they choose instead to pursue the pleasure in the senses to the highest. Example: kings and billionaires and also people on the way to purse the path to kings/billionaire. Your proposed solution is too silly to them because it’s clear that they have a better solution to dukkha until the end of their life.
-
People who believe in the same understanding of the First Noble Truth as you do above: Instead of choosing to solve the problem of dukkha by eradicating craving and clinging, they choose instead to pursue self-mortification to the highest measures. Example: the ascetics who practice self-mortification in very extreme ways. Your solution is considered too mild and below-standard to them. To their eyes, your eradicating of craving and clinging is not worthy enough to claim any valuable knowledge because you can’t endure the hardship as they did. They are the ones who truly eradicate clinging and craving while you are just an amateur.
-
People who believe in the same understanding of the First Noble Truth as you do above: Instead of choosing to solve the problem of dukkha by eradicating craving and clinging, they choose instead to live a super normal life and practice doing merits here and there to their own likings. Your solution is considered redundant to them. When their death (or their parent’s death) is near, they choose to inject a dose of drug to solve the problem of dukkha. Your proposed solution will also vanish into thin air when they got Alzheimer’s disease. Why bother to understand and waste their time to follow your proposed solution?
Finally, do you think that the Buddha at his time could persuade so many types of persons (not just such 3 types of persons above) while claiming that he is the BEST in the World by proposing such a version of the Noble Truths as you did?
itipi so bhagavā arahaṁ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānaṁ buddho bhagavā.
2 Likes
We might had read it too fast. Let’s read it again:
And since for you, Bāhiya, in what is seen there will be only what is seen, in what is heard there will be only what is heard, in what is sensed there will be only what is sensed, in what is cognized there will be only what is cognized, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be with that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be with that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be in that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be in that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be here or hereafter or in between the two—just this is the end of suffering.”
You will not be here. Here refers to this life.
Hereafter refers to after death.
In between the two refers to the in-between states between rebirth.
Bhante sujato’s translation: When you’re not ‘in that’, you won’t be in this world or the world beyond or between the two.
Clearly the Buddha was referring to rebirth here. So even the advanced teachings build upon the basics.
For many from Hinduism background, they have basically the 10 mundane right views, especially on kamma, rebirth and the sages with direct insight into these as taken for granted. When they ask Buddhists questions about the Buddha’s path, I found that I really can just answer in brief and they got understand things very well. Before that, I was puzzled why so many suttas had the Buddha given very brief answers to profound questions, without elaboration. Turns out the questioners has sufficient basis to understand the answers.
For those with western education background, there is the underlying worldview of materialism. Rebirth is not taught as a fact in schools. Science is often hailed as the ultimate standard, until some developed the attitude of scientism. A lot of learning and basics are needed for these western educated people if they are not in the culture which has buddhist concepts.
The Chinese has been shaped by Buddhism so much that our common phrase includes past life dunno what debt i had incur to you, this life i pay back. Or see you next life.
Rebirth as the concept becomes a critical part to be able to understand about Buddhism or else it is just a self help programme, not the liberation from cosmic injustice of kamma and the cruelty of beginningless rebirth. Ending finally what might not have an end otherwise.
It could be said that not seeing that unenlightened people are subject to rebirth is a form of delusion. A delusion of falling into annihilation thinking for materialists. For God based believers the delusion is to more commonly fall into eternalism thinking.
Yes, one can practice the path without much emphasis on rebirth. But if there’s a fundamental misunderstanding about rebirth up to the point of not wanting to acknowledge that even enlightened ones acknowledges that unenlightened people undergoes rebirth, then there could be a danger here.
Danger of not actually attaining to the enlightenment of the Buddha. There’s plenty of Hindu sages who claims enlightenment. Do we acknowledge that they are? If they don’t follow the noble 8fold path, we say, wrong view leads to wrong knowledge and wrong liberation.
Wrong liberation is where one is not enlightened, one thinks one is enlightened.
You can try to look at r/streamentry in Reddit. So many people self proclaim to be stream winners, when I asked one of them if rebirth is true, they adopt an agnostic view. Later on, another guy from another website whom I trust more, when I ask about this secular stream winner, he said that’s not likely to be real attainment.
The lesson here is not to judge who’s right, but that there’s plenty of subtlety in insight business and plenty of levels. Plenty of disagreements.
Even if a secular Buddhists might attain to stream winning for sure, then can the general Buddhist community trust that? Especially if that so called stream winner wouldn’t want to acknowledge that unenlightened people are in danger of being reborn.
Say if this really is a pathway, then it’s still two issues. Best not to get confused.
Issue 1. It’s possible to become a stream winner by being agnostic about rebirth. Secular Buddhism can be a valid pathway for those too mired into scientism to be most appealing to them.
Issue 2. Rebirth is not true. Buddhism should change to reflect this.
For issue 1, it’s yet to be settled if secular Buddhism can produce stream winners, although I think if you ask people, maybe some will say yes, as long as it’s not active disbelieve, which would fall into wrong view.
Say if it is settled, we have a solid pathway for those who are too deep into scientism to be comfortable of letting that worldview go. Then project that into the future. 200 years later, rebirth evidences has millions of cases, but still ignored and suppressed by academia and the God based religions. Buddhism keeps on shrinking in numbers. Most non God believers practice secular Buddhism. They might ridicule Buddhism for being so backward thinking and clinging to superstition of rebirth.
Until the world condition becomes an utopia, the kids of the secular Buddhists don’t believe in their parents of the awesomeness of stream entry, they prefer to become one with the singularity AI. That’s not better, claimed the parents, but the kids don’t believe in rebirth, don’t want to die and annihilated after death, so they choose their temporary “immortality” in singularity AI upload. The secular Buddhist parents lack the doctrinal tool to convince their kids that that too is impermanent, and it’s not the ultimate end to suffering. Secular Buddhism dies out due to no more attainers. Too bad that in the wake of secular Buddhism’s damage to Buddhism, very few joined in the monastic order and Buddhism can benefit less people for liberation.
Or scientists are finally acknowledging that rebirth is fact, after 80 years of uncomfortable existence side by side, most secular Buddhist returned to the fold of Buddhism. Only extremists are left in the cold, being like flat earthers.
Regardless, given that the whole enterprise of Buddhism is to produce stream winners, these scenarios are not too bad.
What is bad is issue 2. For the secular Buddhists stream winners to have some of their disciples pushing for rebirth is not true and completely take over Buddhism. Their next generation abandons the pursuit of enlightenment due to realization that the path is too hard for most but only some of the most talented ones and they don’t have faith in rebirth to push them through the difficult part of the path.
Ok, sorry got a bit too carried away projecting stories.
Just that even if it is true that one doesn’t need to emphasize on rebirth for liberation, rebirth is still true. One should not use the issue 1 to promote for issue 2. To claim that we don’t need rebirth concept, therefore rebirth not true. Faulty logic.
There also can be the consideration of demographics. Most westerners come into Buddhism are super talented in being able to meditate. And then they can attain so easily. Maybe they had the view that since it’s so easy for them, and they don’t need rebirth concept on their path, they throw it out.
When they try to become a guru, they might find the second generation of people who has past merits who can follow them.
Then after a while, no more. The rest of the people tried meditating, got stuck, gave up. Didn’t believe in the drug like experience of the stream winners, abandoned the path. After all, they reasoned, no next life, why should they try so hard?
Their secular Buddhism became not for the masses.
Whereas Buddhism has a complete teaching. For those who are not yet ready for the path to enlightenment, there’s the path to heaven. For those who would had been spurred on by the dangers of samsara, they might put off effort to become a stream winner compared to those who don’t.
Secular Buddhism is a fine stepping stone into Buddhism. But it’s not the final form of teachings the Buddha meant to give the world. So step on. Come fully into Buddhism. Mature out of the attachment to materialism worldview. After all, one should abandon attachments to even views to become an arahant.
Once the attachments to materialism view is let go of, it becomes much easier to make sense of rebirth and have a facepalm moment of why didn’t I see this obvious thing before?
As it is, denying rebirth is not only against scriptures, it’s also against empirical evidences. Which is why I keep on getting puzzled by secular Buddhists who claims to not believe in rebirth due to kalama sutta, but reject empirical evidences as well, not just rejecting the logical and scriptural support for rebirth. It’s a clear case of double standard.
1 Like
I think that Buddha did go 2 major ways:
-
a Path of Great Effort, of conditioning, a Path of actively applying mind and using and developing all its powers and qualities to adress obsessions, tanha, asava’s, kilesa’s and anusaya in a specific way, i.e. he adressed his heartsache, heart oppressing forces. But he felt, in a way it was no real skill, not liberating. He needed something else.
-
He found the Path of surrender. The power of inactiveness and just seeing or knowing. Whatever Mara did, Buddha did not handle it anymore with specifik skillful means. He did not react on it. In this way he did not feed the demon anymore.
Mara’s army became beaten by doing nothing but observing and knowing and fully embracing all tricks (love). No good to develop, no bad to abandon, at that moment. No unwholesome to abandon, no wholesome to develop. No moral to strive for and immoral to conquer. No level to attain. Nothing to become. Nothing to reject. Nothing to attract. No passion or movement at all. The Noble Path.
Poor Mara, beaten because the Buddha even loved his tricks and did not fight his armies anymore.
Even his beautitful daughters were without change when the Buddha became totally passive, without any passion to react or change anything he experienced. (Green would be their pray!, but that you know).
Doing nothing proofed itself as the ultimate conquerer. Ultimate power. Ultimate liberating.
Can we really expact liberation if we keep dividing our experiences?
2 Likes
Hi @Green. Thank you for your answer.
However, my question was originally meant for @Donabedian and/or anyone currently does not believe in and/or is agnostic about rebirth and/or anyone has a different understanding of rebirth as the conventional sense (such as @Joe.C or @Raftafarian or @Alaray or @Gabriel)
If you want to answer my question in a consistent way, please firstly trace back to my post here and then Donabedian’s answer to understand the context of what I said in the later post .
The first noble truth is a concept of the Buddha which expresses that the religious professionals of his time & place saw an existential problem in being reborn continuously.
It came to 770 words.
-
For the mortal craving sensual pleasure, if they get what they want, they become enraptured in mind. If all goes well with the gamble, one feels whimsical pleasures that covers up or masks the suffering. But if all doesn’t go well, suffering resurfaces. So it’s silly for them to think the endless chasing of sense pleasures will always solve the problem. From trial and error, from experience, the human learns it isn’t a reliable solution. It’s like putting a bandage on a wound, but the bandage lacks adhesive, so the cover eventually falls off. Those kings and billionaires may keep trying to keep the bandage on, only for it to fall off again until they find a better solution.
-
For ascetics who crave/pursue self-mortification, they are like those who approach the dangerous eye of a hurricane. On one hand, it is true that life is filled with unexpected disasters. Even if one does not approach hurricanes like these ascetics, one is subject to encountering storms. It is not wrong for ascetics or seekers to train the mind to be prepared for great tribulations, but there is still no good reason to, amidst immense discontent, pursue and hasten the arrival of those disasters.
Their delusion arises in thinking that the arrival of those hardships will somehow, magically, make suffering vanish. Further, those ascetics oft perform self-mortification because they wish to conquer those hardships to reach a desired state of being, much in the same way a fighter struggles, withstands blows and strikes, yet manages to defeat a stronger opponent to become the new MMA champion. There is a sense of accomplishment, self-aggrandization, pride, pleasure that stems from the victory, but that pleasure too is temporary and addictive. When it fades, the ascetic, if still breathing, will once again crave more difficult hardships to battle. From trial and error, from experience, the human learns it isn’t a reliable solution.
- For those who practice merits here and there, indeed they receive a reward in this very life. That reward is happiness, contentment. Protecting beings brings about relief in the protector. Loving another brings joy. Giving brings about happiness in the giver. Caring for beings brings satisfaction to the caretaker. The wise do indeed praise them. They are recognized as virtuous. Indeed, the making of merit here, in this very life brings about tremendous happiness in giver and recipient, bringing about pleasant states of minds and delaying states of death and loss.
So long as beings are capable of making merit, they may delight in making merit. But if, for whatever reason, they are unable to continue making merit, they suffer. Some suggest that they may wish to take a lethal drug when they get old to relieve their suffering. That practice was common in ancient India. When a householder became old, no longer able to make merit, they would sometimes seek death. Some would aim to die in battle, others would let themselves be eaten by wild animals, while others would march north until the body collapsed from exhaustion. Some would jump off cliffs, others use a blade or poison.
But in the present moment, whilst these individuals are craving death, grasping after non-existence, by poison or blade, by fang or by injury, here in this very life they continue to suffer. Needlessly. In the moment whilst these individuals are craving death, they are also oft torn because in their minds re-arises “self-preservation” that is a desire to live and be free from harm. While not as futile as the pursuit of sense pleasures or mortification, this method is not always a reliable solution.
Alzheimer’s is the decline and decay of mental faculties, but if a seeker has trained the mind not to grasp or crave, even if they forget what the noble truths are called, even if they do not know the eightfold path by name, even if they lose command of language itself, they do not experience dukkha.
As per being agnostic about rebirth, the doctrine of post-mortem or pre-natal rebirth is a doctrine I do take up or put down. Among the various doctrines of afterlives and rebirth, there is nothing that is grasped at or held as “this is the truth” here. Rather, the ‘re-birth’ of “I” and “me” in the mind, here in this life, in this body, is seen as the problem to solve.
I take that Gotama, the sage did not claim to be the best in the world, or the worst, or equal. He had eradicated self-view in its entirety, a feat which aided and persuaded many.
1 Like