Thank you Brahmali
Is not the most important ground based on The Four Great References?
Since many knew Pali, I doubt language alone can be the criteria.
Obviously, we do not agree, here. As I posted, to me, AN 4.197 seems certainly about the here & now because it does not use the terms 'kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā’. It states:
Here, Mallikā, a certain woman, is angry, often irritable. Even over a trivial remark, she is cross, shaken, vexed, stubborn, and shows her temper, anger and sulkiness. She is not a giver of food, drinks, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments, beddings, dwelling or lightings, to recluses or brahmins. Furthermore, she is jealous in her heart; jealous of others‟ receiving gains, honour, respect, esteem, homage and worship; she is vengeful and holds grudges. If she falls away (cutā) & returns (āgacchati) to such a state, wherever she is reborn (paccājāyati), she is ugly, deformed, of very mean appearance, and she is poor, having few things, of little wealth and little influence.
The term ‘āgacchati’ is found in many suttas where it does not mean physical rebirth.
Also, the term ‘jāyati’ also does not always refer to physical rebirth. For example, AN 4.200 states:
Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, pemāni jāyanti. Katamāni cattāri? Pemā pemaṃ jāyati, pemā doso jāyati, dosā pemaṃ jāyati, dosā doso jāyati.
Monks, these four things are born. Which four? Affection is born of affection. Aversion is born of affection. Affection is born of aversion. Aversion is born of aversion.
SN 35.97 states:
Pamuditassa pīti jāyati: is born; arises. (jan + ya) When one is gladdened, rapture is born. When the mind is uplifted by rapture, the body becomes tranquil.
Therefore, AN 4.197 seems to say each time a lady is angry, she is ugly in appearance, unattractive, unwanted & shunned.
This seems to be a perfectly reasonable interpretation based on reality because I personally know a few women who are like this.
OK. MN 135 uses both the words ‘upapajjati’ (which is very common) & ‘paccājāyati’ (which is rare). Using SC search function, ‘paccājāyati’ is only found in MN 135, MN 129 & AN 4.197.
I have already given my personal opinion about AN 4.197, where it appears paccājāyati does not refer to post-mortem rebirth.
As for MN 129, the terminology is the same as MN 135:
Khippataraṃ kho so, bhikkhave, kāṇo kacchapo amusmiṃ ekacchiggale yuge gīvaṃ paveseyya, ato dullabhatarāhaṃdullabha, bhikkhave, manussattaṃ vadāmi sakiṃ vinipātagatena bālena. Taṃ kissa hetu? Na hettha, bhikkhave, atthi dhammacariyā samacariyā kusalakiriyā puññakiriyā. Aññamaññakhādikā ettha, bhikkhave, vattati dubbalakhādikā.
Sa kho so, bhikkhave, bālo sace kadāci karahaci dīghassa addhuno accayena manussattaṃ āgacchati, yāni tāni nīcakulāni—caṇḍālakulaṃ vā nesādakulaṃ vā venakulaṃ vā rathakārakulaṃ vā pukkusakulaṃ vā. Tathārūpe kule paccājāyati dalidde appannapānabhojane kasiravuttike, yattha kasirena ghāsacchādo labbhati. So ca hoti dubbaṇṇo duddasiko okoṭimako bavhābādho kāṇo vā kuṇī vā khujjo vā pakkhahato vā na lābhī annassa pānassa vatthassa yānassa mālāgandhavilepanassa seyyāvasathapadīpeyyassa. So kāyena duccaritaṃ carati vācāya duccaritaṃ carati manasā duccaritaṃ carati. So kāyena duccaritaṃ caritvā vācāya duccaritaṃ caritvā manasā duccaritaṃ caritvā kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā apāyaṃ duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ nirayaṃ upapajjati.
Bhikkhus, it is more likely that the blind turtle would put his neck in the plough share and yoke the eye to the hole to see light rather than the fool once fallen to hell would gain (dullabhatarāhaṃ ??? ) humanity. What is the reason? Here, there is no righteous living, good conduct, merit or a pleasant mind. Here they eat each other, the weaker one is eaten up.
Bhikkhus, even if the fool regains (āgacchati) humanity after a very long time he is born (paccājāyati) in a low clan such as with the out castes, the hunters, with the bamboo weavers, chariot builders, rubbish collectors or in such other low family. Born into a poor family without eatables, drinks and clothing, gains them with difficulty. He too is not with pleasant appearance has a deformed body and is with many ailments, either blind, deformed, lame or paralysed, or does not gain eatables, drinks, clothes, conveyances, flowers, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings and illuminations. He misbehaves by body, speech and mind and after death goes to decrease and is born (upapajjati) in hell.
Therefore, based on my search, this appears to be only two suttas, namely, MN 129 & MN 135, using the same terminology & the same karmic determinism of social class & physical appearance.
I disagree here because it is a very large departure from kammic efficacy leading to future heaven (sukha) & hell (dukkha) to a past life regression determining current social status & physical appearance.
I think we need to be careful supporting Hinduistic teachings that institutionalized evil & injustice.
The majority kammic teachings accord with suffering & the end of suffering, the Buddha’s stated sole purpose, as stated in MN 22; where MN 135 does not. MN 135, when read materialistically, seems only about worldly conditions rather than about dukkha & sukha.
Respectfully, fortunately, I am fortunate enough to have the freedom to ignore this determinism & deem it as both dangerous & false.
Plus it has been disproven so many times. Many people are born into poverty & become wealthy and many people are born into wealth & end up in poverty.
It doesn’t. Sorry. The Buddha taught feelings arise due to sense contact and arise independently of social class & physical appearance.
[quote=“brahmali, post:63, topic:5795”]
My understanding of MN 135 is that it is not the violence that leads to rebirth among humans, but rather some other kamma. The violence leads to the shortness of life.[/quote]
This is obviously false. There is no proven correlation between past life kamma & length of life. A very wealthy man recently passed away at 101 years old. His whole family were considered by many to have an alleged interest in evil. He himself was reported to have sponsored many evil schemes in his life, such as the Kinsey Institute, which promoted sexual liberalism based on research conducted by pedophiles. It makes no sense in a past life this man had good tendencies (anusaya) and chose to be reborn into a family who were also reputed to have evil tendencies & behaviour.
Yes. It appears materialistic because the Brahman student asked the questions. But, in reality, I think the Buddha’s alleged reply (regardless of its heedlessness) was spiritual. I think it is impossible to correlate the various worldly status in MN 135 with past spiritual qualities. The Buddha must have said if a human performs an act of violence his spiritual life will be shortened, such as when squatting a mosquito results in broken samadhi (concentration).
Generally, in life, evil people live a long life and good people (such as who foolishly yet selflessly volunteer for war) live a short life. This is why Jesus said: “No greater love has one who gives up his life for a friend”. Even DN 31 states a true friend will give up his life for a friend.
I mentioned this is illogical to me or cannot conform with Dhamma-Niyama because it is past life tendencies (anusaya) which supposedly determine the quality of the next life (as Ajahn Brahm explained with the mangoes).
Also, there is no corrrelation between goodness & evil and making money. While most very wealthy people in history have engaged in evil to acquire wealth, good people have also acquired it virtuously.
I mentioned I disagree with MN 135 vs AN 4.197, unless MN 135 is interpreted as spiritual wealth, health, beauty, long-life, etc, as actually found in many suttas.
In conclusion, based on your personal criteria, linguistically, MN 135 appears rare to me. Based on my criteria, I think its principles are a departure from the Buddha’s core message, where said he only teaches about suffering & its cessation (MN 22), which accommodates most kammic teachings about sukha & dukha but not MN 135 which, when read materialistically, is only about worldly status; but when read spiritually, is about sukha & dukkha.