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
This sentence is as simple as a Pali sentence gets. Here it is:
Abhinibbatti kho, āvuso, dukkhā, anabhinibbatti sukhā.
There are two phases: Abhinibbatti dukkhā and anabhinibbatti sukhā. Both of these are what is sometimes called equational sentences of the type A is B: Abhinibbatti is dukkhā and anabhinibbatti is sukhā. There is no grammar to speak of.
In any case, in the context of the Dhamma of the suttas this is hardly a surprising statement. It fits in squarely with everything else.
3 Likes
Thank you bhante. 
That’s a very fallacious argument my friend.
The EBTs leave room for taking the knife under very specific conditions and to me the working hypothesis of the reality of rebirth only make those conditions more specific and restrictive.
When I read SN24.3 I understand that it’s exactly because awakening comes with a direct understanding of dukkha involved with rebirth and letting go of its dependent origination that the Buddha says that venerable Godhika is not at fault. This is because Godhika had attained to those things and as a result Mara wasn’t able to find his next birth to continue to haunt him.
If you remove rebirth from the picture, then anyone who may embrace the argument of there being only one life and finding himself/herself stuck in this life with some condition or untreatable obstacle to his goals would be absolutely at no fault to take their lives whenever it suits them.
If you want to discuss this further we may start a new topic to discuss and understand how “secular Buddhists” ( again, I dont know what that can mean!) would see fault in suicide, given that rebirth is not a reality for them.
Let me make clear. I was making use of argumentum ad absurdum which is based on showing that the opposite scenario (denial of rebirth) would lead to absurdity or contradiction.
If those subscribing to those inconsistent views dont reach those logic conclusions it may be the case they are not properly reflecting on what they are chosing to base their lives on. This is normal and expected from the perspective of Buddhism given that delusion (moha) is one of the key forces propeling being from one birth to another.
EBTs do depict the Buddha describing a very wide matrix of such delusional points of views. See for example DN1 which lists 62 types of those views, or maybe DN2 which shows how the Buddha contrasted his teaching with the teachings of six of his contemporary leaders of spiritual communities.
From the Buddhist perspective, there is no issue with pursuing, achieving and developing the blameless pleasure of immersion in jhanas or even states less sophisticated than those. And I am not arguing otherwise.
The issue is that, once you remove rebirth from the Buddhist definition of dukkha and freedom from it, you are left with a path that can be at most sevenfold. And again, this is perfectly fine as long as you dont try to attribute it to the Buddha who spent his whole spiritual life teaching and guiding those on a path to end rebirth.
A materialistic hedonist will invariably get to the conclusion that consciousness is a mere by-product of the elements and not involve a dimension of its own.
From that conclusion, he/she may find in the numbness or altered states brought by things like alcohol, anaesthesics, natural or synthetic drugs, the sort of pleasure the Buddhists try to generate internally without those drugs and in the context of an Eightfold Path based on understanding rebirth as suffering as right view.
Also, given that from such materialistic standpoint with death the elements break down and the conscious experience arising from it dissipates and ceases permanently, it is also a very possible outcome that those adhering to that point of view may see suicide as a blameless choice as well.
Now, that does not mean that you may have materialistic hedonists which choose a more virtuous and moral path. As I wrote before, that was probably the case of Charvakas leaders such as Ajita Kesambali. And that choice is perfectly explained by the fact that in the relativistic moral model they adhere, being seen as a good or virtuous individual may result in the prestige, respect and fame they need to gain themselves access to as much as possible pleasure.
And nowadays, with the advent of “secular Buddhism” this is exactly what happens. The behaviour and choices of those who take the position of leadership in this group are most likely justified by the fact that it gives them access to a career similar to that of the ancient Greek Sophists: they become dhamma “teachers”, “instructors” and lead retreats in which their pursuit of pleasures are fullfiled and they maximise the utility of their time left before the final and permanent cessation of death.
3 Likes
Well, I don’t know. Sometimes rebirth makes sense to me, and sometimes it doesn’t. Or more accurately, sometimes reincarnation makes sense to me - I still don’t get rebirth without a “soul”.
I can’t say it’s made much practical difference to how I practice, or to how I lead my life.
2 Likes
I still find what you say very strange Martin. I know that you probably won’t like my analogy, but it might help someone else, so here goes. If I take an ordinary everyday example, something like say … I might ask you to do something and then you might do it. What permanent thing is there between us that makes the task that I thought of come to fruition in your actions? All that has happened is that a sound (my voice) has triggered a series of events. The sound is the seed that triggers the deed in the field of Martin. Nothing permanent, just a seed planted in furtile soil. Hope this helps someone.
2 Likes
A seed is an entity, but there is no such thing “in” the aggregates. In the EBT, the aggregates are transient, which means there is nothing to be reborn. In the EBT, the aggregates are without self, either individually or collectively, so again there is nothing to be reborn.
While we are giving analogies, the one that I often think of is being in one of those olympic relay races, except that we are completely oblivious of the facts like how did we get in this situation, why are we running, why do we have a baton in hand, what are we supposed to do with it, etc. The runner can choose to slack off and just wander off but if they don’t and without knowing all the answers diligently runs, and passes off the baton at the end of their run, the next runner inherits all that effort and benefits and the team does better.
I think the relay race and baton analogy works for reincarnation, where there is something to pass on. But I don’t see how it works for rebirth, where there is nothing to pass on. In the EBT there are only transient aggregates, and those are ephemeral… Form is like foam, consciousness like a magic trick…
What do you mean by a “person”? If you mean satta, then that is just a view or designation (see SN 5.10 for example).
In any case, I don’t think the EBT talk about a person being reborn, since a person is just a bundle of aggregates.
The Mahayana attempted to square the circle by adding in “store consciousness”, but as you say, that doesn’t seem relevant here.
When you say a seed is an entity, are you saying that entities are permanent? Is a seed the same as a seedling? Is a seedling the same as a sapling? Or are these transient ‘entities’? I’ve never known an entity that wasn’t transient.
I’m saying that aggregates aren’t entities. By which I mean aggregates don’t have independent existence.
@Martin That is true - fair point.
My main issue with this topic is that I have never understood why people who have been teaching dhamma for decades (like Gill) feel the need to take an assertive stand on something that is unobservable. It is fine for scientists and philosophers to speculate on the unobserved but the Buddha’s teachings are one of the few if not the only one that decidedly and strenuously ask the practioners to stick to the six senses and the observed (most of the time). Even to the extent of deciphering and realizing that the signals processed from these senses (the observables) are colored by views and latent tendencies. Every single time someone takes an assertive stand based on views about unobservables, they are giving birth to a self and strenghthening self-view. Suttas are replete with warnings about this. It reminds me that it is the opposite of Ajahn Chah’s “not sure” teachings.
There are two ways I would be sure of the rebirth thing: (broadly speaking - details yet to be worked out)
- Someone dead comes back and announces to me how it is after death (assuming it is verified that it is not a hallucination)
- While following the path, one can reach a stage where previously unobservables become observed, which I presume is what happens with the attainments about previous lives, destination of others, etc.
In the both instances, there might still be a certain amount of faith and belief involved but it is a direct experience of sorts. The second instance is practically uselss for anyone else except the experiencer.
Anyway it bothers me when people who should be teaching in line with the dhamma take a stand on issues that can never be verified to satisfaction and there is no reason to take a stand on it.
This is not accurate. The aggregates are conditioned, which is captured in dependent origination. Dependent origination explains how rebirth happens without a self. It’s simply cause and effect.
The aggregates move from one room in the house to another. It’s all impermanent, all impersonal, but there is still movement. Rebirth is the same. It’s just movement.
5 Likes
Sorry, but I don’t find the aggregates moving from room to room analogy convincing. Aggregates aren’t discreet or lasting entities which can move from one life to another, they are transient and ephemeral. And I don’t see anything in the EBT to suggest that aggregates survive death and somehow transfer to a new life.
Dependent origination doesn’t explain how rebirth happens without a self, it explains how suffering arises.
The EBT don’t explain how rebirth happens without a self. To attempt an explanation, you’d need to use later concepts like “store consciousness”.
1 Like
This is not factual.
It may be a text you cannot understand (yet), but what is found in MN38 does explain both things as the Buddha contrasts dependent origination with the mistaken view of there being a consciousness that transmigrates from one birth to another.
https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato
4 Likes
Sorry, but I don’t see anything in MN38 which explains how rebirth happens.
Could you point out where this is?
Have you really read it? 
The whole sutta is exactly about that! 
Consider listening to it instead. SuttaCentral Voice is a great way to do that:
http://voice.suttacentral.net/
Alternatively, check on YouTube for some of the suttaclasses on that sutta. I am sure that BSWA’s YouTube channel has at least one of those there on the topic.
1 Like
Yes, I have really read it. Again, which part of MN 38 explains how rebirth happens?