It’s hard to read passages such as in DN11 where a monastic visits Brahmā, to ask him about the Dhamma without seeing some humour in it. Particularly when Ajahn Amaro reads it as if it’s a Monty Python sketch…
Then that mendicant approached the Great Brahmā and said to him, ‘Reverend, where do these four primary elements cease without anything left over, namely, the elements of earth, water, fire, and air?’ The Great Brahmā said to him, ‘I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Undefeated, the Champion, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord God, the Maker, the Author, the Best, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born.’
For a second time, that mendicant said to the Great Brahmā, ‘Reverend, I am not asking you whether you are Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Undefeated, the Champion, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord God, the Maker, the Author, the Best, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born. I am asking where these four primary elements cease without anything left over.
…
Then the Great Brahmā took that mendicant by the arm, led him off to one side, and said to him, ‘Mendicant, these gods think that there is nothing at all that I don’t know and see and understand and realize. That’s why I didn’t answer in front of them. But I too do not know where these four primary elements cease with nothing left over. Therefore, mendicant, the misdeed is yours alone, the mistake is yours alone, in that you passed over the Buddha and searched elsewhere for an answer to this question. Mendicant, go to the Buddha and ask him this question. You should remember it in line with his answer.’ SuttaCentral
Absolutely, Tuvok. Just because I’m a jaded old lady does not give me the right to ascribe insincere motives to others. I apologize to you, and indeed to Mr. Fronsdal, and I retract my original comment.
I think rebirth is a part of Buddhism that for most is a matter of faith or doctrine (just like a Christian believing in Heaven). Other parts of the path one can test for oneself more immediately. It’s only at advanced parts of the path that there may be an opportunity to to verify this for oneself (otherwise, one has to take someone else’s word or trust descriptions in a sacred text etc.). I think devas and paranormal abilities (abhinna) fall into similar territory (come as something of a package since it’s hard to think rebirth can happen, at least in the way described in the suttas, and abhinna not exist).
IMO confirmation bias is rather evident in the Fronsdal article. Humans are rather prone at noticing or focusing in upon evidence that confirms their strongly-held beliefs and filtering out more conflicting stuff. There’s a lot of this happening at the moment with regards to Covid-19; there’s pretty much a convenient expert to be found for just about any opinion one wants to hold on that situation. I believe Fronsdal is sincere. I wouldn’t fault him with having issues with rebirth. It’s just that the number of leaps he then has to make to come to the conclusion that rebirth (or psychic abilities) wasn’t an original teaching (and putting such emphasis on the Atthavagga) is stretching the limits of plausibility. It might be better explicitly separating out the two issues.
Personally, I’m agnostic on the rebirth issue (not just in some sceptical sense). Have had some odd experiences (and heard about such things from others) that would make me not rule out the possibility of such psychic phenomenon (in spite of the elusiveness of such phenomenon and my scientific training). Maybe this is my own confirmation bias!
There is no explicit mechanism for rebirth set out in the suttas as far as I can see. My favourite metaphor for dependent origination is rather based on seeds and planting than a chain. If avijjā (ignorance) is like the earth and sankhara is like a root system, then, progressing forward through the other steps in dependent origination, is like a plant sprouting into a new life (and perhaps absorbing things in the reverse direction down into the root via bhava) until the plant dies off and leaving things to eventually sprout up all over again. For this all to work, there needs to be a non-physical way that sankhara (the plant’s root in my metaphor ) carries over into a new life. In a universe in which divine sight (and other abhinna that could be more easily verified) existed allowing a person to see back into their own past lives and see the rebirth mechanism operating elsewhere, well that wouldn’t be a big leap.
As per MN95, if I had come to a “reflective acceptance” of rebirth, I could say I have a reflective acceptance of rebirth and preserve truth. If I had faith in rebirth, I could say I have faith in rebirth, and similarly for “reasoned cogitation”. However, if I were to say that there is rebirth, well, I’d have to have known and seen that for myself or have good evidence (how could I truthfully say that for certain otherwise ). Anyway, MN95 says “discovery of truth” is possible, which goes beyond things such as faith or “reasoned cogitation” or “reflective acceptance”. I’m certainly not there yet with regards to rebirth, anyway!
I wanted to express my gratitude for the secular meditation teaching I first received that began this amazing journey and which led me to discover this beautiful Buddhist path.
In the first session, the teacher informed that he was not a Buddhist and would not be expressing any particular spiritual views. He was also a highly skilled and experienced meditation teacher with a sincere intention and warm approach.
Thank you! This is really important. There’s such an important role for people to play at all kinds of levels. So many people bring peace and mindfulness into people’s lives every day, without there needing to be anything to do with Buddhism. And if all it does is give a single person just one peaceful breath, then that is enough. And for some, it will be a starting point on an amazing journey! I’m happy to meet you along the way.
I’ve been mulling over the contradictions between anatta and “rebirth” for a long time, and my conclusion is that they’re simply not compatible. I haven’t found any of the explanations in this thread remotely convincing, they seem like vain attempts to square a circle.
It’s as if the Buddha was being radical, but not radical enough, hanging on to parts of an old way of thinking.
And just to clarify, I’m not a sceptic about rebirth. My argument here is that rebirth really requires a “soul” to be a coherent proposition.
But how would rebirth work with a soul? A soul would by definition need to be unchanging, otherwise there’s nothing that makes it yours. How can an unchanging entity be embodied in different forms?
Actually there are various definitions of “soul” across the different traditions, it can be changing, or unchanging. If it’s unchanging, then liberation would involve the direct realisation of that “essence”.
In any case, the general characteristic of “soul” theories is that there is actually something to be reborn.
In Buddhism there is nothing to be reborn, hence the problem.
Unless you can clearly say what is reborn, according to the EBT?
Not to be grouped in with the vain … I will attempt to put my two cents and keep it simple. The Buddha didn’t answer this question directly ever in the suttas to my understanding. This was a point of frustration back then, and it obviously is to this day. As you may know, he was asked in SN 44.10 about the nature of the self (SuttaCentral) and you probably know the answer—or lack thereof.
This is how they attend improperly: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? After being what, what did I become in the past? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? After being what, what will I become in the future?’ Or they are undecided about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it come from? And where will it go?’
This was shared with no expectations of changing any individuals mind.
Or maybe we interpret the texts in a wrong way. Maybe as arahant you are freed from rebirth, because finally you get it, that there is none? Just sayin’…
We get confused because we mix three different frameworks of reference. It is as if someone were to mix Newtonian, Einsteinian and Quantum Physics. “If matter is energy, then why can’t I put my hand through the wall? Aren’t both just made up of the same basic particles, popping in and out of existence?”
At the level of the conventional 8FP, there actually are entities like Mother, Father, etc. There is Rebirth and there is Kamma.
At the level of the supramundane 8FP, one understands Dependent Origination and sees that everything is simply changing patterns within Samsara. Seeing thus, the Deathless is seen…and that’s the end of Rebirth. The question doesn’t apply as there’s nothing there to be reborn, age or die.
At the level of the Arahant, even this understanding undergoes a shift. The factors in the pattern itself are seen to be Empty and Dependently Originated. For such a one, there is no difference between Samsara and Nibbana… both are Sunyata (at least, according to Nagurjuna).
This sounds like a muddled Mahayana-style answer, but how does it relate to the EBT?
In the EBT Nibbana is distinct from samsara… And so on.
Waffly pseudo-science isn’t helpful here, it just muddies the water further.
The first framework of reference (mundane 8FP) is covered in suttas such as AN10.211.
The second framework of reference (supramundane 8FP) is covered in suttas such as SN12.15.
The third framework of reference (understanding of an Arahant) is indeed non EBT Mahayana. It from Nagurjuna .
Let’s assume I’m well versed in the suttas and sutras. Let’s assume I’ve practised in all the main Buddhist schools over a long period of time.
Where exactly is the explanation of what is reborn?
First framework of reference AN10.211… sentient beings exist and are reborn.
There is an afterlife… There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
Second framework of reference SN12.15… no beings or Self, only patterns of empty factors arising and passing Viz dependent origination.
This world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence.
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…
The world is for the most part shackled to attraction, grasping, and insisting.
But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation, insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp, and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing…
Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
Let’s not mix ‘Beings’ from the first framework of reference with ‘Non Self’ and DO of the second framework. That ways there is no contradiction. Just two different ways of looking at the world.
I might disappoint you on this. It’s just an idea that popped into my mind some time ago, didn’t have the time (and probably motivation too) to check how feasible it is with regards to EBT - which is why I mentioned it in a half-joking way.
But let’s try to put my loose thoughts into words.
Buddha was teaching in an environment, when many believed (or maybe even took for granted) some kind of rebirth. Then with his inquiry he arrived at the insight, that there is nothing there that could be reborn. But what would happen if he started teaching upfront that rebirth is not a thing? Would they just accept it? (How easy it is nowadays to accept, that there is absolutely no evidence for it ).
Another problem is that there were people that claimed that there is no kamma, whatever you do doesn’t have any influence or meaning. It clearly does, and he knew that, so he wouldn’t like to be associated with this group or give them confirmation of their beliefs.
Dependent origination seems a brilliant solution. To those who don’t believe in kamma it gives an explanation of how it works. To those that cling to the idea of rebirth it gives a framework of how that works. With the unspoken caveat, that the rebirth is not really there - only the cause and effect.
All of this can probably be refuted in multitude of ways… for which I will be greateful. It will enable me to come up with better theory
EDIT: also, since proving a negative is an impossibility, you can’t prove that there is no rebirth. Claiming that there is nothing to be reborn is as far as you can get along this path.
EDIT2: I think Buddha was even more careful here with the wording, saying that “nothing permanent can be found”, not that universally “there is nothing permanent”… can anyone correct me on this? It’s a subtle difference, but quite important
The Not-Self Series 3 March 2019:The not-self characteristic (Part 1)
A distinctive aspect of the Buddha’s teaching is that of anatta, or not-self. He introduced anatta in his second formal teaching, Anattalakkhana Sutta (The not-self characteristic Khandha Samyutta 22: 59), which was delivered after the first Buddhist meditation retreat. Tonight we will look at the first part of the discourse, where the Buddha introduces what he means by “not-self” by explaining what he means by “self.”
10 March 2019:The not-self characteristic (Part 2)
Tonight we examine the second part of Anattalakkhana Sutta (The not-self characteristic Khandha Samyutta 22: 59). In the first part of this discourse the Buddha clarified what he means by self. In the second part he goes on to explain not-self. But he does not give his audience a doctrine – he gives them a practice. How is not-self not a doctrine? What is the practice of not-self? And where does this practice take us?
24 March 2019:The not-self characteristic (Part 3) - Not-self and life-after-life
One area where contemporary practitioners have trouble with the Buddha’s teaching is that of life-after-life. The Buddha believes that beings live again and again, and he sees liberation in terms of liberation from perpetual life-after-life – or death-after-death. This belief is almost automatically rejected by educated, rational people in our culture because we take for granted the view of scientific materialism, which can be summarised as: once you are dead, then you’re dead! Tonight we will look at life-after-life in the context of not-self, because for the Buddha, this is where it belongs and without an understanding of not-self we cannot understand life-after-life.
Patrick emphasises that the suttas on not-self are designed to chop away at any sense of self, and any sense of stability, rather than provide an “answer”.
I believe Fronsdal is sincere. I wouldn’t fault him with having issues with rebirth. It’s just that the number of leaps he then has to make to come to the conclusion that rebirth (or psychic abilities) wasn’t an original teaching (and putting such emphasis on the Atthavagga) is stretching the limits of plausibility. It might be better explicitly separating out the two issues.
). Anyway, MN95 says “discovery of truth” is possible, which goes beyond things such as faith or “reasoned cogitation” or “reflective acceptance”. I’m certainly not there yet with regards to rebirth, anyway! 
).