Yes, rebirth certainly seems to be a belief, the question is then whether it’s a useful belief, as others have observed.
I’ve done thought experiments, and imagined rebirth as a reality. If feels like a comforting belief, because it represents some kind of continuation beyond physical death. Though I realise that isn’t the intention of the suttas, where continued rebirth is an outcome to be avoided.
For me it also removes the sense of urgency about practice, though again I realise that isn’t the intention of the suttas.
On the positive side, it puts my current life and concerns into a much larger context and perspective.
2 Likes
Yes, I do have a specific view of the meaning of dukkha in the context of Buddhist mind training, and that is, that it means ‘negative emotional affect’. I base this on the Buddha and the arahants being free from dukkha, experiencing no dukkha, and yet, experiencing negative sensory affect (chronic back pain etc.); negative homeostatic affect (e.g. the Buddha’s overwhelming thirst as he was dying); and old age and death; and yet no negative emotional affect. In further support of this is the teaching of the 2 arrows; and the ‘imperturbable’ states which are free from dukkha and accessible to the unenlightened.
I have a question about this. Here’s the passage:
Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress are suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
Jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsāpi dukkhā, appiyehi sampayogopi dukkho, piyehi vippayogopi dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ, saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā—
I have considered that either the suttas talk about dukkha in two separate ways, with differing domains of meaning (which would not be unusual for Pāli); or, there may be an issue with the interpretation of this passage.
Regarding the latter, I’m interested to know more about the grammar of this passage, so would much appreciate input from anyone with good Pāli skills. So, is there any other possible interpretation of this passage? I’m not asking if there is any other interpretation that’s been proposed or any that’s been accepted. I’m asking more broadly - simply by the grammar, is there any other possible interpretation of this passage, based on the rules of grammar, if we ignore all received interpretation?
For example, could something like this be possible?
Rebirth: suffering; old age: suffering; death: suffering;
Jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ,
If such English could be possible based on the Pāli, then this could be interpreted as being based on a doctrine that rebirth etc. lead to suffering. Or are characterised by suffering. And, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no such thing as no suffering, under these conditions. Such that the Buddha might still ‘get what he didn’t wish for’ (such as noisy surroundings, which he tended to like to avoid), but not experience dukkha. Or he could even experience old age and death, but without dukkha. In fact he even experienced dukkha’s antonym, sukha, while in jhāna as he was dying.
Equally a Buddhist could spend his life ‘maximizing what they see as sukkha and consequently minimising what they take as dukkha’, and yet merely lead a life characterised by dukkha.
You seem to be assuming that the lack of rebirth naturally leads to what you call ‘hedonism’ and is incompatible with mind training that leads to the cessation of dukkha. And yet I see no reasoning to back that up that holds up to analysis.
2 Likes
It may also be worth baring in mind that the rebirth doctrine can lead to the logical conclusion that it’s a good idea to commit suicide after attaining enlightenment. That is perhaps a most logical position to take. And many arahants did so, right? So there’s that also.
Not having the rebirth view generally rectifies this issue (if you see it as an issue, that is).
Hmm did they? Any quotes / references?
1 Like
One thing that strikes me (reading this post and the conversation in general) is that we actually have very little choice over what views we hold. People don’t really choose their views, whatever logic and arguments are involved. Usually we believe the view we have, then find a way to justify it to ourselves (if not others).
1 Like
Another point to consider is the ambiguity of the passage we discussed in this thread:
Yes, we start with beliefs (or disbeliefs) and then seek to justify them. But I’ve found that with some imagination it’s possible to explore what holding another view is like.
1 Like
It is just illogical.
If death is the end, time is short, why waste time developing something towards mental states that maybe a powerful drug could give you without much trouble?
To me a secular Buddhist is at high risk of becoming a psychological clock bomb. Eventually the implied and required strict materialist perspective implied in a model of life without rebirth will kick in and, by pure logic, hedonism will prevail.
Hopefully it will be a moral hedonism, but even that, will be mostly fed by the prestige and respect those who are not pure pricks tend to get among materialists exactly because they don’t choose to be pricks! 
Anyway, before we start fighting strawmen here I just wanted to say that I tried for years to reason with a secular Buddhist model of life. I could not make it work or stand on its on.
Without rebirth, we are just a bunch of masochist automatons made of flesh and bone. Under that assumption, I would rather follow the advice of Ajita Kesambali and the other Charvakas…
The enjoyment of heaven lies in eating delicious food, keeping company of young women, using fine clothes, perfumes, garlands, sandal paste… while moksha is death which is cessation of life-breath… the wise therefore ought not to take pains on account of moksha.
A fool wears himself out by penances and fasts. Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings.
— Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verses 9-12[57]
It amazes me how most of what we call modern society spins around what these verses summarises. Hence we have fast food, unlimited porn, pursuit of wealth and power and celebration of those who attain it (celebrities , influencers, CEOs).
And we shall include in that list to some extent the “secular spiritual culture” (whatever that means) in which prestige is given to those who accumulate more “flight hours” in pricey retreats, and associates mindfulness certifications etc.
The only way secular Buddhism can make sense to me is if you become a secular Buddhist leader or personality. In that case, just like in the case Ajita Kesambali, holding that point of view yields prestige and access to the pleasures he preached are to be enjoyed to the fullest before the inevitable and final cessation of death!
1 Like
An essential requirement for a meaningful conversation! If only it were easier to spot those who don’t want to, how much time and grief would be saved. It would be so quiet 
I guess that is what the sangha is all about.
1 Like
I think the end of the conclusion in Analayo’s rebirth book is a perfect conclusion to this thread as well.
It reads
Nevertheless, certainty about what happens or does not happen after
death will become accessible to each of us only at an uncertain point in time
in the future, namely when we die ourselves. At that point in time death and
its implications will indeed become a matter of personal and direct
experience. The present study can only collect information to enable one
better to appreciate the early Buddhist teachings regarding rebirth and to
evaluate for oneself how far the body of evidence presented here suffices
for a belief in the possibility of some continuity beyond death.In the final count, it seems to me that what remains of central
importance is to learn to face mortality, one’s own and that of others, rather
than turning a blind eye to it. I doubt this challenge can be met by resorting
to arguments and counterarguments in the debate on rebirth. Instead, it
requires diligent practice of mindfulness of death, by way of giving full
recognition to the indubitable fact of mortality. In fact in early Buddhist
thought the “deathless,” amata, can be realized while one is still alive. It is
not a state or condition reached only after one has passed away.The path to the deathless is diligence;
Negligence is the path to death.
The diligent do not “die”;
As if dead are those who are negligent
6 Likes
The EBTs do tell us that the Buddha did not see an issue with that. Have a look at SN4.23
The problem is to do that before having fullfilled the ennobling tasks associated with the Four Noble Truths: to fully understand suffering, to abandon its dependent origination, to verify or witness oneself the cessation of Nibbana, and to develop the Eightfold Path which results in that attainment.
It is ok to disagree. But it is also useful to reflect on what one chooses to believe and the logic consequences of that choice.
How do you reconcile or justify developing the mind towards the Buddhist Nibbana if in the absence of rebirth death ticks all the same boxes ?
The only explanation I have is that one must be driven by a very refined sort of hedonism, which somehow buys the Buddhist notion that once the element of Nibbana is known or even before that one attains to some sort of ‘super high’.
And to that point, natural and artificial drugs may be a much more rational choice for its immediate results.
1 Like
I agree somewhat with what you’ve said, but my mind it’s slightly different.
I think that we do actually choose our views, it’s more of a matter of when. We create and hold views because we don’t realize the extent to which they are conditioned. It’s when those opinions, views and beliefs are presented or challenged that we choose.
We come to our opinions, views and beliefs in different ways. A cultural conditioning from birth where we’ve only been exposed to one option is very deeply rooted. Or we might hear something in later life that catches our attention and we grasp on to it with varying degrees of clinging to it. Either way, there is a logical and emotional attachment to it. I’ve heard it said that we attach to something emotionally and justify it with logic.
For instance, if we’re born and raised in a community where one specific creator god is embraced, there is a very high likelihood that our beliefs will mirror that. We don’t necessarily choose those religious beliefs until we ask questions and are nudged deeper by little choices. Or we might get swept up in a political party, choose those opinions, views and beliefs and wave the flag for years. To challenge any of those beliefs would not only challenge our logic but undermine our basic sense of security, our footing in the world.
But if we can summon up courage to face the logic of our mind and the uneasiness that we feel, the door can crack open. When we really and truly patiently investigate with awareness, fully recognizing and setting aside our biases, recognizing the full extent of our conditioned mind, that’s when we can put our opinions, views and beliefs on trial. It’s a fork in the road, where our decisions become a conscious choice, the ones where the roots go really deep.
5 Likes
This is a good and on-topic question.
Let’s see if bhante @sujato or bhante @brahmali can say anything about whether or not we could have a grammatically correct alternative reading to what is found in AN10.65 which does not equate dukkha with rebirth. 
1 Like
Thanks for your post @Adutiya 
I agree with you. Our views are mostly conditioned but we can intentionally change them. There must be a way to develop right view, otherwise the Buddha wouldn’t teach it.
Well, there’s hedonism and, then, there’s hedonism! 
Greek Epicureanism could be classified as hedonism, but it, in many ways, was a more sophisticated and restrained form (almost Buddhist in some aspects). Even a rather utilitarian approach of maximizing personal happiness could end up looking quite different for different people.
3 Likes
The Buddha’s path to awakening was to challenge and test everything: his sense organs contacting phenomena, arising impressions, vedena, perception, the nature of individual thoughts, opinions, views, beliefs, everything. What didn’t incline towards nibbana was abandoned.
1 Like
That’s your personal assumption. However it is illogical to project that view onto all those who don’t believe in rebirth. IN fact, it’s demonstrably false, since many who don’t believe in rebirth, do not come to that conclusion, and many are even serious dhamma practitioners.
Also, there are no known drugs that result in the cessation of dukkha, even as I have defined the term.
Some people can think mastering a musical instrument is ‘a waste of time’. Some people think accumulating wealth is ‘a waste of time’. Some people think that training your mind is ‘a waste of time’. You will find people believing in rebirth, and people not believing in rebirth, in all the above categories.
Have you not noticed that reality does not operate according to your ‘pure logic’? Or, do you in fact believe you have conclusively observed this phenomena in all cases of people who have not believed in rebirth?
That may be an overlapping issue, but that does not define the issue. Secular Buddhism has many issues. It is by no means only concerning rebirth belief.
You see only those two views. Others do not. I think it’s really important to realise that other people can have different views than we have, or even than we may imagine or logically speculate.
I suggest looking into ‘Deep Ecology’, as an example of something very very different from the view you give, which has no necessity for rebirth belief. Here’s a link:
https://www.schumachercollege.org.uk/learning-resources/what-is-deep-ecology
You may also consider the Sufi tradition, which does not have rebirth belief, and yet does not say “we are just a bunch of masochist automatons made of flesh and bone”. These are merely two examples.
So then you can decide which you prefer, for people to become free from all dukkha and then to commit suicide due to rebirth belief; or, enlightened people with no rebirth believe, who remain alive with no dukkha, and most likely being of great benefit to the community. And, if you think the rebirth belief leading to suicide is the better option of the two, then sure, you may feel this is another benefit of the belief.
Death does not lead to the cessation of dukkha and the attainment of sukha, in this life. So, evidently, it does not tick the same boxes. In fact if the goal is the movement from dukkha to sukha, then it completely fails to tick the one and only box.
Also you keep talking about hedonism. I assume you mean pleasure-seeking? How do you feel about the Buddha famously spending so much of his time post-enlightenment, deliberately bathing his body-mind in explicitly pleasurable affect? I.e., jhāna. And advising his disciples to do the same. And using that as a major selling point for his path. Yes it’s internally generated pleasure instead of 5 sense-input derived. But it’s still pleasure.
2 Likes
I have only read of an arahant commiting suicide when they are mortally sick or are going to be more of a burden than benefit for the community.
2 Likes
It’s not really possible which is why Buddhism without rebirth falls apart.
Jan Westerhoff looks into this issue in a paper of his called Buddhism without reincarnation?
3 Likes