SuttaCentral
The term is quite simply ditthi, so it’s straightforward ‘view’.
The closest literal translation would indeed be “again-being”. Interestingly, while the root bhū is Vedic, the derived term bhava doesn’t to be pre-Buddhist. The original bhū is diverse in meaning: to become, be, arise, come into being, exist, be found, live, stay, abide, happen, occur. I think a close examination of the term in the suttas should show if an interpretation without rebirth is valid, or in which contexts it is.
Some thought on Snp4.3:
For one who formulates and creates teachings,
and promotes them despite their defects,
if they see an advantage for themselves,
they become dependent on that, relying on unstable peace.
The Buddha is very clear that real peace of mind can never ever come from grasping anything, also not views or a certain opinion on Dhamma. That is consistent in the Pali Canon. It is an eternal truth, i belief. It is beyond any culture, time, tradition true.
Grasping, or seeking grip, always results in a forced stability, a very delicate peace. It is wobble.
But the Buddha does not reject seeking grip, i see, because ofcourse he knew one cannot suddenly from one moment to the other just abandon grasping and the universal need for grip.
It is not we or an I or ego which grasps. And one cannot decide “now i abandon all grasping”…This is a delicate process. It cannot be forced. It must not be forced.
It’s not easy to get over dogmatic views
adopted after judging among the teachings.
That’s why, among all these dogmas, a person
rejects one teaching and takes up another.
Yes, once one has embraced a certain opinion, has a subjective standpoint, this grip gives one a sense of certainty and clarity, it is hard to let go. Because we have a need for grip, we always reject this opinion but take hold of another opinion. We can be aware the mind is seeking grip all the time.
The cleansed one has no formulated view
at all in the world about the different realms.
Having given up illusion and conceit,
by what path would they go? They are not involved.
If people have a direct knowledge of others realms and talk about it, they do not formulate a view or opinion. I belief that is meant. But if people without direct knowledge begin to talk about the existence or non-existence of other realms, promoting this standpoint, rejecting that standpoint, only based on reasoning, they are just wasting time. They better admit…i do not know and stop there. The problem lies in the fact that people think such issues can be solved by reasonings or that the result of reasoning is true knowledge.
For one who is involved gets embroiled in disputes about teachings—but how to dispute with the uninvolved? About what?For picking up and putting down is not what they do; they have shaken off all views in this very life.
Yes, re-birth, Nibbana, anusaya, purified mind, asava, tanha, mind without me and mine-making, attachments, Paticca Samuppada, samsara, others beings, an afterlife is no view for one who knows. For someone with no direct knowledge of deva’s, for example, he/she can argue their existence, but one who knows does not become involved in such senseless disputes because, for him/her this is real waste of time. Do you start a debate with someone who argues that the sun does not exist? Oke, than you probably love argueing and philosophy.
For picking up and putting down is not what they do; they have shaken off all views in this very life.
Yes, what they know is not a view. Knowing makes an and to speculative views (it can be this or that), an end to views, an end to grasped standpoints, opinions . That is, i belief meant with ditthi here.
I feel Sutta Nipata 4.3 is consistent with other sutta’s, at least i see no problems.
There is a sutta in which someone understands the Buddha’s teaching this way: “this same consciousness in this very life transmigrates to another life”. I belief Buddha calls him a fool or foolish This is no Buddha-Dhamma. I belief somewhere in MN.
It does not work that way according the texts. Vinnana is very fluid, short-lived. It cannot go from one life to another. Re-birth is more like a stream that continues after death. This stream is not the same as the stream of conscious moments. For example, you also live when you do not experience anything in coma, in deep dreamless sleep. So this stream consists of conscious but also very much unconscious moments. What the Buddha appeared to see is that this livestream has not begon at the moment of physically taking birth and does not end at death. It is not the same as consiousness! I belief the Buddha teaches that the lifestreams does not end at death because the energy for this stream to continue is still present in the form of the will accumated in the mind and expressed with concepts like tanha, asava an anusaya. Death is not the sudden disappearence of this energy. It becomes a support of a new conscious moment after death (SN12.38) . Something like this.
I have seen Abdhidamma support this view that Paticca Samuppada may be seen also as a development ot the mind in real time. But this is not complete. The habitual development of the mind in real time (not of an I!) corresponds to how mind will develop again after death.
For example: if you have a strong patigha-anusaya in this life, you become quickly mad. Anger arises easily. In this life your mind will develop often to the sphere of an agressive animal who wants to attack others. Taking birth in this spirit in real live becomes a strong kamma seed when feeded all the time. At the moment of death this strong kamma seed may come to the forefront, and based on that you might be born as an agressive animal. This is why it is important not to feed such habits. What would be the problem if there is only one life? It would be at most not nice to feel agressive. But any real risk would not be in that. But, seeing rebirth as real, this is very different.
Anyway, it can be seen both, literally and psychologically. Maybe you can give this some consideration.
Regarding the different aspects of ‘renewed existence’ you can check out Somaratne’s article Punabbhava and Jātisaṃsāra in Early Buddhism. As usual, Somaratne is thorough and clear.
His conclusion is that the two terms jāti(saṃsāra) and punabbhava should be distinguished. Jāti would refer to a bodily (re)birth, and punabbhava is the renewed-‘self’-existence during life which is the condition for a future bodily rebirth. Hence, the latter would be psychological.
I looked at the occurrences of punabbhava in the suttas and to me it is clear that Somaratne’s conclusion is correct. There are, however, some suttas in which punabbhava seems to refer to bodily rebirth - as if a minority or a later transmission line didn’t distinguish the two terms.
Seen in this light, based on the suttas a psychological interpretation of punabbhava is correct, but not of jāti.
The manifestation of the aggregates is seen as (re)birth (MN9). Based on this definition, can one say that birth also happens in real time?
It’s better to further use the Pali terms in order to avoid misunderstandings. MN 9 defines jāti as
jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṁ
All these terms bear the connotation of a bodily birth. So I would stick with the general assumption made above that jāti refers to bodily birth and not to a cognitive re-newed existence.
I think scientism is a good philosophy, its only weakness is it follows science too closely since science is evolving its evolving means it’s in its current form is not perfect and complete, secular Buddhism on the other hand is already a complete philosophy so people don’t need to “wait” to understand the whole picture, people don’t want a puzzle picture and secular Buddhism provides exactly that whole picture
secular Buddhism is already a big upgrade from scientism but if they convert to Theravada Buddhism that would be better
As I understand, “No view” does not mean that you will not have any view. It means that if you encounter a view that different than yours, you can present your view to them, but you do not force others to accept your view, or you must accept other people’s views. In addition, you also do not reject their views. Simply leave them there as they are if they do not fit yours.
If you cannot convince others, let it be so. They have their own level of understanding, and that is proper for them now. You have your own level of understanding, and that is proper for you now. Each person has different level of understanding and background.
Carefully examine other people’s views, we may find something interesting, and we may change our own view. If they are wrong, we can also see how we were wrong like them before, or we can see how the grasping works. Moreover, even if we think other people’s view is wrong, that’s still our own view for now. It is not the truth. Our view is not the truth, it simply is our current understanding, and it is what fits best to us for now.
Even if we believe in something for now, we should not grasp onto it as truth. Simply see that as what fits best to us for now. It simply is a tool for us to reach the goal, it is not for grasping. If we can use it to reach our goal, that is the best tool for us. If not, we may need to find another one. The key is to reach the goal, not how shining the tool is.
One can reach the other shore by airplane, others may do so by boats.
You share your understanding with others in hope that you may help someone. Not for debate or prove that you are right and they are wrong. Therefore, if others do not agree with you after you clarified your view to them, you will have no desire fight back. If they want to know more then you can give more if you could. If they reject your view then you also have no objection. Therefore, how can one engage in debate?
When someone accepts your view, you do not proud. When they reject your view, you do not get irritated. When you focus on the goal than the views then you have no view and no debate.
I agree that most refer to bodily birth. One can doubt about some. For example, manifesting of khandha’s. Do they not all the time manifest?
(Sorry that i start from this point repeating myself.)
I follow the interpretation that realms can be understood literally and also psychologically. Also taking birth in those realms. There is becoming and aquiring a certain state of existence in this life in real time and also after this life. I see many clues Buddha meant it this way.
In the end, there is only development of mind in real time. Over many lives is just a scheme, a theory.
Factors like vinnana, namarupa, decay, death, birth have different meanings in different Paticca Samuppada cyclus. This takes some time to study.
Maybe it is new for you that there are more than 1 Paticca Samuppada cycle. New information can be hard to absorb. But i found it very useful to take some time to study this.
yes I think one argument that supports rebirth is the concept of craving for existence or craving for being I always translate craving as unsatisfiable thirst so if you have thirst for sex for example then you would want it repeatedly, you want it again and again, craving for existence could means you would want existence repeatedly or you want existence again and again so logically there should be many existences, right ?
Well certainly, even before death, beings crave for states of existence and work to bring those states about again (ie like sex). And beings often have children because they want “their blood” or “their lineage” to continue and persist. I cannot speak of the effects of craving after death, simply because, well I am not dead and cannot attest to that nor am I interested in forming views on that subject, seeing it as unimportant.
people are slaves to their craving because they think craving as “I” and “mine” so they never think their craving enslave them in the first place once they disassociate with their craving they would be free from them they would unbind from them hence unbinding (nibbana)
100% in agreement. It appears three mental process are being referenced here.
The mental process we would identify as craving.
The mental process we would identify as “me-making”
The mental process we would identify as grasping at as self.
now existence is unsatisfactory if existence is satisfactory no one wants existence again, right ? if existence is satisfactory then that one existence should be enough the fact that people are not satisfied by just one existence shows the unsatisfactoriness nature of existence
Indeed, but as we observe there are some states of being that are more unsatisfactory than others. Like being sick or in pain is more unsatisfactory. For those who crave less unsatisfactory states of existence, they will suffer and seek states of existence that are less unsatisfactory, even if the states they seek are still ultimately unsatisfactory and temporary. And as you pointed out, even these less unsatisfactory states are not enough, because there are always a lesser unsatisfactory state to grasp after
seeing existence as unsatisfactory, sane people should not have thirst for them yet they still do, that’s confusing too to me
Well most don’t realize existence is (ultimately) unsatisfactory. It’s like a cigarette, initially pleasurable, but bad in the long term.
if I am not mistaken Buddha said plant has no consciousness and is not involved in rebirth but science shows otherwise plant could cognize where light is and follow them so I think either Buddha was wrong or the oral tradition was wrong
Perhaps plants may cognize light, but can’t cognize vedanas or cognize mental objects. I know Gotama and other monks were hesitant to hurt or injure plants, perhaps because it is more of an unknown.
You think “no view” means something other than “no view”? With respect to your stance, I must disagree. I think it’s pretty explicit.
Even if we believe in something for now, we should not grasp onto it as truth. Simply see that as what fits best to us for now. It simply is a tool for us to reach the goal, it is not for grasping. If we can use it to reach our goal, that is the best tool for us. If not, we may need to find another one. The key is to reach the goal, not how shining the tool is.
But this I agree with.
There is a sutta in which someone understands the Buddha’s teaching this way: “this same consciousness in this very life transmigrates to another life”. I belief Buddha calls him a fool or foolish This is no Buddha-Dhamma. I belief somewhere in MN.
Perhaps I wasn’t specific or clear but I didn’t intend to present the view that it was the same consciousness that is transmigrating, merely that consciousness is transmigrating. When texts say “he will arise there”, are they not talking about consciousness?
In this I may quote Sujato in “consciousness is regularly spoken of as the phenomenon that undergoes rebirth, not only in a Buddhist context”. I understand there is the concept of consciousness re-descending into the womb, as some suttas claim.
Indeed, in this life I see how vinnana is short-lived but I find it difficult to believe that kamma can go from one life to another but a vinnana can’t, especially if vinnana is a stream.
I am of the opinion that there isn’t one universal presentation of literal rebirth in the suttas, with sufficient variations and ‘contradictions’ between suttas reflecting the beliefs of the composers who attribute their views to the Buddha, hence why I do not partake in such speculation and retain an agnostic view of neither annihilationist rejection nor affirmation. In fact, speculations over what is reborn is what is believed to have caused some of the historical divisions among buddhist sects. The issue is that, not all of their suttas have survived, so we can only compare Therevadin suttas with those that being translated from Chinese/Sanskrit from the sarvastivada, kasyapiya, and mula-sarvastivada schools. I have an odd suspicion that the suttas of the EBTs will reflect sectarian influence, such that EBTs from a Sarvastivada agama will reflect Sarvastivadin metaphysical beliefs on what is reborn, much like how Therevadin suttas may reflect Vibhajyavāda/Therevada beliefs etc… all presented as the genuine teachings of Gotama Buddha.
Of course, I might be wrong. I understand such studies are underway.
For example: if you have a strong patigha-anusaya in this life, you become quickly mad. Anger arises easily. In this life your mind will develop often to the sphere of an agressive animal who wants to attack others. Taking birth in this spirit in real live becomes a strong kamma seed when feeded all the time. At the moment of death this strong kamma seed may come to the forefront, and based on that you might be born as an agressive animal. This is why it is important not to feed such habits. What would be the problem if there is only one life? It would be at most not nice to feel agressive. But any real risk would not be in that. But, seeing rebirth as real, this is very different.
But if consciousness is not self, how can I say I will be reborn as an aggressive animal if in this life I am aggressive. Instead, one can certainly postulate and say this (impersonal) state of mind/consciousness (of anger) will arise here just as it arose there. But I need not identify with it or claim it as self. Yet it appears that many texts do identify a being with a consciousness that is reborn, using terms like he or she will be reborn here, whereas others do not and emphasize that a being is not consciousness, that’s merely psychological grasping and me-making.
Also there appears to be some contradictions. Do the 5 previous khandhas completely dissolve at death or do they merely break apart? Are a set of 5 new khandhas generated and aggregated or like legos do they exist as pieces and are merely brought together? Does a khandha originate elsewhere and descend into the womb where it leads to the generation of other khandhas? And why do some texts mention a ghandhaba as playing a role in rebirth while others don’t.
I think that, judging from the EBTs, there was an earnest attempt to understand the arising and cessation of consciousness pre- and post-mortem.
From personal practice.
Equating the (re)appearance and re-arising of consciousness/feeling/material form/perceptions/constructs and volitions with again-being, rather than with the arising of the “I” or “self”, there are those who seek the cessation of consciousness/feeling/material/ perceptions/constructs and volitions after death. They want this process by which the aggregates arise and come together to cease.
But these feats can be achieved in this life. One can reach states where the khandhas cease.
But let’s say these feats cannot be achieved in this life.
Isn’t the desire or craving the cessation of consciousness/feeling/material form/perceptions/constructs and volitions post-mortem, an end to this rebirth, a form of craving for future non-existence?
Rather I feel there is greater peace when one neither craves for another literal again-becoming or craves the cessation of literal again-becoming.
This way, if there is no again-becoming after death one is not dismayed. And if there is again-becoming after death, one is not dismayed. Adopting no views or opinions about what one happens after the death of this body, one merely awaits its eventual dissolution, mindful, aware, at peace.
Perhaps this perspective will prove foolish, who knows
I would distinguish two aspects there. 1. If the suttas present literal rebirth 2. and if so, then what is reborn
To 1. The case for the suttas not presenting literal rebirth is close to impossible to make. To say that all devas, rebirth stories, etc. are merely psychological, means to twist and pervert the suttas, I think. If you limit yourself to Snp 4, and maybe Snp 5, then yes, these make more of a case to not bother with realms of existence at all.
To 2. Still, if one accepts that the overwhelming majority of big-nikaya suttas present or imply literal rebirth, the question of what gets reborn remains a terrible mess. To say ‘consciousness’ get reborn doesn’t help. Hegel and Lacan have shown that even with tons of explanations the mechanical aspects of consciousness are almost impossible to dissect. This btw doesn’t depend on talent or insight - the phenomenon of consciousness as such is a mess. To have insight into it is one thing, to relate this insight to others is a different thing and needs volumes. Maybe the Buddha went into these details, but this surely didn’t get transmitted. The suttas present merely a teaser to the vast topic of consciousness analysis, and even the abhidhamma remains simplistic.
(I know devout Buddhists will insist that the suttas are complete and perfect, but sorry, that would be a superficial view of consciousness. It’s like saying that a few poems contain everything there is to know about physics)
So I wouldn’t even hope to be able to find out based on the suttas what precisely gets reborn, regardless of the comparative research.
I think what’s reborn is suffering ,“reborn” is a bad word here I prefer “arising” instead, since what’s suffering is not self what’s reborn is not self, since it’s not self we shouldn’t bother at all with it, we should not bother at all with the idea of rebirth
I wasn’t being very clear. My apologies.
With regards to 1., I do believe there are suttas which present/teach literal rebirth. That being said I don’t think there is one universal, consistent presentation/schema/model of literal rebirth among those suttas that talk about rebirth. That is to say, there is variation in how rebirth is presented, ie its mechanism, which results in contradictions which I assume reflect the beliefs of the composers of those suttas (albeit it’s all attributed to the Buddha or claimed to be the Buddha’s exact words).
Granted when pointing out contradictions, I don’t want to commit an argument from silence (though the absence of certain elements/components of one schema/model in another model should be pointed out).
[One example of this is the Dependent Origination lists. We have lists with varying numbers of nidanas, some 6, some 8, some 10, some 11, some 12. There are also differences in the ordering of some of the nidanas between suttas. This has led some respectable scholars to believe the 12-fold list we recognize was a later invention, a synthesis of various lists or the list which happened to become the most popular among its rivals. Others would say using the absence of certain nidanas to come to this conclusion is an argument from silence.]
Granted, some of these contradictions may be explained away by demonstrating that the apparent contradictions between these suttas are capable of being remedied and are anything but contradictions. (I know this is an area that Ven. Sujato and Ven. Analayo have worked on).
That said, it appears that appears that there are some contradictions/inter-textual inconsistencies or stark variations I find incapable of exegetical synthesis. This is an area that I’m particularly interested in and hope to research. The purpose of this research isn’t to deny literal rebirth, but to rather to better understand its conceptions and defend the view that the suttas reflect the varied (debated) beliefs of their composers on all things liberation, rebirth, any topic really.
And historically, these contradictions have led to schisms amidst Buddhist sects, one can think of the Pugdalavadins and the Sautrantikas and how their views on rebirth vary from today’s mainstream Theravada.
If you limit yourself to Snp 4, and maybe Snp 5, then yes, these make more of a case to not bother with realms of existence at all.
In terms of scholarly voices, I tend to strongly agree with Nakamura’s view that much of the doctrinal ideas/practices/teachings of Buddhism have their origins and roots in the (suspected) oldest stratum, and in that oldest stratum we can identify seeds or primitive versions of ideas/practices/teachings/concepts that were later expanded upon (and possibly even corrupted or modified) in suttas that are found in the 4 Nikayas. Now, a big question is whether these expansions occurred in the life of the Buddha or after. Given the variations/contradictions in things like DO and rebirth models/mechanisms, I am led to the latter belief, but others are free and encouraged to disagree.
That’s why I find the mentions of punnabhava in the sutta nipata very interesting. The pragmatic focus seems to be more so on ending craving/longing for punnabhava than it is forming a view/opinion on exactly how punnabhava operates or how it works. And in stark comparison to Nikayan suttas, there appears to be a greater focus on the psychological component of ending “I-making”.
To 2. Still, if one accepts that the overwhelming majority of big-nikaya suttas present or imply literal rebirth, the question of what gets reborn remains a terrible mess. To say ‘consciousness’ get reborn doesn’t help. Hegel and Lacan have shown that even with tons of explanations the mechanical aspects of consciousness are almost impossible to dissect. This btw doesn’t depend on talent or insight - the phenomenon of consciousness as such is a mess. To have insight into it is one thing, to relate this insight to others is a different thing and needs volumes. Maybe the Buddha went into these details, but this surely didn’t get transmitted. The suttas present merely a teaser to the vast topic of consciousness analysis, and even the abhidhamma remains simplistic.(I know devout Buddhists will insist that the suttas are complete and perfect, but sorry, that would be a superficial view of consciousness. It’s like saying that a few poems contain everything there is to know about physics) So I wouldn’t even hope to be able to find out based on the suttas what precisely gets reborn, regardless of the comparative research.
I am largely in agreement. That makes much of what I have written above redundant and a rehashing of what you wrote. My apologies, as when I respond I sometimes don’t read ahead but go point by point.
body and mind are not self, right ?
if they are not self then whose memory is that in the present and if past lives indeed exist then whose memory was that in the past ?
No self doesn’t deny individuality. The law of kamma is not that I do this, another gets the result. The attainment of nibbana is not that another walk the path, then I got the fruit. In this sense, one can discern that individuality exists, it can be seen as the chain of past lives. Those who can recall past lives, can recall this or that person at this or that period of time as their past lives. I am not aware of any experiment done in the suttas or in real life for multiple people who can recall past lives, but here’s the prediction based on the notion that individuals exist.
No two people who can recall past lives, will recall that they are the same person in a past life. Or these, this means that a person can be reborn into two different future bodies.
The chains of past lives is what can distinguish one individual from another. Reincarnation - Millboro Case - YouTube this video shows that there can be a whole village of people who got reborn. And it’s possible to point out who was who in the past. There is no cases where a person in a past lives is identified as two person in this life. Or two persons in the past life is identified as one in this life.
Sutta evidence is clear from most Jataka stories, where similarly, the Buddha identified one person in this life to one person in the past life, for each time slice. So next jataka stories, they all are taking different bodies. So in this manner, we can form a chain of past lives from the past to the present, and each person is clearly an individual, with their kamma and ignorance (enlightened or not) as the things which propagate. Memories also pass on, with only unlocking via hypnosis regression or meditative recall.
If you’re thinking that externally, it seems not much different from reincarnation where the concept of an eternal soul is underlying the many lives. Indeed, rebirth evidence wise, they look the same from the outside. It’s just a philosophical difference that we Buddhist believe that the Buddha has deeper insight into seeing that the chain of past lives, that individual defined by kamma, ignorance is also not self. Also impermanent, also subject to suffering, thus not worth to be identified as self.
This is a very clear cut understanding of rebirth and no self, which is basically that people who got confused, dunno what no self actually means, and think that no self means a certain mechanism for rebirth is impossible. Whatever the rebirth mechanism is, they are all impermanent, suffering, thus not fit to be regarded as self.
Those who really need their doubts cleared about rebirth, can try out hypnosis regression.
Clear. I like the teaching that the mental domain (nama-loka) is also all around us. It is just as real as the material domain is also all around us. The material and mental domain (rupa and nama) both form our total inner and outer world. But, in the end, rupa we only know as nama. For example, when you touch a stone that tactile sensation of the stone is nama. The world we know or experience is all mental.
The nama-loka is not only inner! This is very different in materialism where it is considerend to be inner. This mental domain, the nama-loka, is not a result of brain-activity.
I like to see it as a fine meshy-like ground penetrating all. So, you and i are never disconnected from the mental domain. When we die this mental domain does not end. The basics for a re-arising vedana, sankhara, vinnana, rupa, a new life, are present. They just newly arrange.
Kamma and also memories of former lifes are not part of the rupa loka, but of nama-loka. So, even beings without brain, like, deva’s can remember part life because this does not depend on having a brain. Memories of past lives and kamma are part of nama-loka.
I would not surprise me that Buddha sometimes explained re-birth in a simple colourful way and sometimes more in a more realistic technical way. I belief the idea of a descending gandhabba in a womb is a colourful way of talking about rebirth. I think SN12.38 describes it in a more technical way.
But i a new life is like an ongoing elecric (life) current in a large electric field (namaloka) which is already there. Something like this.
I am totally not knowledgable on which texts are early or are adjusted etc. This is all new for me, so i cannot comment on your thoughts on this. But i find it interesting to read. Thanks.
Regarding the breaking apart of the khandha’s. Wwhat does not break apart after death is vinnana-dhatu and nama-loka in my opinion. It is not like that this is created again after death. It is more like that in nama loka there arises, as it were, a new current, and this give rise to a new and first moment of vinnana in the next life. Something like this.
Why?
Yes, if one would see emancipation as annihilation.
I also agree with @Alaray that rebirth is a bad word. Rebirth just means that after death the individual stream of rupa, vedana etc, continues. There is still fuel for the continuation of the khandha’s but i have learend khandha’s are always new. For example, vedana in a moment of vinnana, is always a new vedana. And vinnana arising is also always a new vinnana.
I also think, like @Khemarato.bhikkhu says, that the teaching on not-self does not deny individuality.
I feel it cannot be denied that from birth to death you are the same individual while we all also know you have changed and are still changing. But, Suppose an apple in your fruitcompote decays. Is that decaying apple another apple than the fresh one it once was? If this is really true one cannot identify decay! Impossible. Decay is then non-existent. One must have a notion of sameness to establish change. One cannot establish change too, this way.
For Milarepa it worked out very well that he was very afraid to experience the consequences of his dark kamma after death. He forsaw a very dark and painful afterlife. It motivated him to find a teacher and an escape. He found it. He was not afraid anymore of dying.
What if he adopted no view about what woud happen after death? Would he still become enlightend and the greatest and well-known yogi of Tibet? I do not think so. I think it was really important for him to have the heartfelt belief he would be reborn in hell. He did not doubt this. In retrospective one can say this view on kamma, kamma-vipaka and rebirth was of great importance for him.
I think that at the death moment one will also evaluate ones life. I think that the view of kamma, the view of karmic debt, the view of retribution, will become more a vivid view.
That sounds like a nice theory Dnoabedian. I am not going to assume this is possible.
that’s a cool analysis, thanks green 
, impermanence exists because there’s continuity
I think we can call past rebirth as past arising or past suffering, we don’t want suffering so we need to review past suffering and by using logical inference predicting future suffering
our action now could change our future so we need to be careful with what we do
but unbinding is basically the ending of defilement which is the ending of greed,hate and delusion I think even rebirth and kamma denier they could still realize permanent non arising of greed,hate and delusion thus ending their suffering permanently,what do you think ?