SuttaCentral
Pubbenivāsa, on the contrary, means precisely “past lives”.[quote=“Deeele, post:31, topic:5580”]
many Westerners are fundamentalist about ‘re-birth’
[/quote]
Well, to each their own, but rather than “fundamentalist”, I prefer to think of it as “knowing Pali”. 
If that is so, then the following translations appear to be errors:
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging or a certain one among them. What five? SN 22.79
With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). DN 2
“Past abodes” is not an error, it’s just too literal. In English, “abode” is not a term for past lives, but nivāsa is in Pali.
OK. You have said ‘nivasa’ is preferable to the Pali word for ‘life’, namely, ‘jīva’ or ‘jīvita’.
Since I am always grateful for a Pali class, how would you distinguish ‘nivasa’ from:
nivesā
ābhinivesā
vāsa
And how does one not live at home? Any desire, lust, delight, and craving, the engagement and clinging, the mental standpoints, adherences (ābhinivesā) and underlying tendencies… these the Tathagata has abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the Tathagata is said to be not dwelling at home. SN 22.3
Bhikkhus, there are these ten abodes (vāsa) of the noble ones in which the noble ones abide in the past, present, or future. What ten? Here, a bhikkhu (1) has abandoned five factors; (2) possesses six factors; (3) has a single guard (4) and four supports; (5) has dispelled personal truths, (6) totally renounced seeking, (7) purified his intentions, (8) tranquilized bodily activity, and become (9) well liberated in mind and (10) well liberated by wisdom. AN 10.20
I said no such thing. Nivāsa is one of several terms that means “life” in the sense of reincarnation in past lives or future lives. Jīva, like āyu, means “life” in the sense of “being alive”, although jīva also commonly means “soul”, being the preferred term for this in Jainism.
For the remaining terms, try a dictionary, and let me know if you have any more specific questions.
Are you able to provide some other examples of the usage of ‘nivāsa’ like this, apart from the 2nd knowledge ‘recollection of pubbe nivasa’?
Sorry, not now, i’m working and such research takes time.
OK. Thank you, again. 
Hi bhante , if I may ,
the meaning of " birth " :
Does rebirth is of next body
or psychological rebirth ?
There is physical rebirth in the EBTs. Vipaka sutta, for example.
There is no rebirth (punbbhava) moment by moment in the suttas, only arising and passing (udayabbaya) of phenomena. Denoting this as ‘psychological rebirth’ is a recent (this century?) and idiomatic way of describing arising and passing away and is not stated in that way in EBTs -i.e. there is no ambiguity.
As for Tulkus, this come the closest I think. However there is no ability mentioned at becoming a specific entity in life eventually, as such:
"Herein, monks, a certain person makes a gift to a recluse or a brahman, offering him food, drink, garments, a vehicle, flowers, incense, ointment, bedding, housing or lighting. In making the gift, he hopes for a reward. He now notices noblemen of wealth, brahmans of wealth or householders of wealth, provided with the five sense pleasures and enjoying them. And he thinks: ‘Oh, may I be reborn among them, when I die, when this body breaks up!’ And he sets his mind on that thought, keeps to it firmly and fosters it. This thought of his aims at what is low,[7] and if not developed to what is higher,[8] it will lead him to just such a rebirth. After his death, when his body breaks up, he will be reborn among wealthy noblemen, wealthy brahmans or wealthy householders. This, however, I declare only for the virtuous, not for the unvirtuous;[9] for it is due to his purity, monks, that the heart’s desire of the virtuous succeeds. AN8.35
A determination alone isn’t adequate, however and wholesome actions (good kamma) probably play an important part:
the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Just as a stick thrown up in the air lands sometimes on its base, sometimes on its side, sometimes on its tip; in the same way, beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, transmigrating & wandering on, sometimes go from this world to another world, sometimes come from another world to this.
“Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.” SN15.9
The word “birth” (i.e. jāti) in such contexts always means “rebirth”, i.e. incarnation in a new body, and never has a purely psychological meaning.
Here are a few:
Then the Blessed One, after applying his mind to venerable Pilindivaccha’s past habitation (pubbenivāsaṃ), addressed the monks, saying: “You should not be offended, monks, at the monk Vaccha, it is not with hatred on the inside, monks, that Vaccha accosts the monks with words of contempt. For the monk Vaccha, monks, for five hundred lives has been reborn in a brāhmaṇa family without interruption, for a long time he has been one who has accosted others with words of contempt, because of this Vaccha accosted the monks with words of contempt.”
(Pilindavacchasutta, Ud3.6)
“More glorious than devas are the Akaniṭṭha beings,
Among whom dwelling I shall make my final habitation (nivāso).”
(Sakkapañhasutta, DN21)
“I know my former habitations (pubbenivāsaṃ), where I lived before; I remained among the Tāvatiṃsa devas, with birth as Sakka.
“Seven times I ruled a kingdom as king of men, possessing the whole world, a conqueror, the lord of Jambusaṇḍa. I governed without stick or sword, righteously.
“From here seven, from there seven, in all for fourteen transmigrations (saṃsārāni) I knew my habitations (nivāsaṃ), then came to be established in the deva world.”
(Theragāthā verses of Anuruddha, Thag16.9)
“But, Brahmā, there is another body, which you neither know nor see, and which I know and see. There is the body called the gods of Streaming Radiance, from which you passed away and reappeared here. But because this has been your habitation for a very long time (ati-cira-nivāsena), your memory of that [other body] has lapsed, and hence you do not know or see it, but I know and see it. Thus, Brahmā, in regard to direct knowledge I do not stand merely at the same level as you, how then could I know less? Rather, I know more than you.”
(Brahmanimantanikasutta, MN49)
“Do you not wish, bhikkhus, to hear some talk on Dhamma connected with former habitation (pubbenivāsa-paṭisaṃyuttaṃ)?”
[followed by a talk about the six past Buddhas, starting with Vipassī]
(Mahāpadānasutta, DN14)
“From here seven, from there seven, in all fourteen transmigrations (saṃsārāni)—
So much I know of habitation (nivāsaṃ) I’ve lived in the long past.”
(Janavasabhasutta, DN18)
Thanks for that research. I doubt we can find much more than those & the suttas I mention below. This seems to confirm what I posted earlier in the topic, namely:
There are thousands of suttas but only a relative tiny amount I have read that talk about past lives of a person.
it seems there are ‘reincarnation’ suttas, such as AN 3.15, AN 9.20, MN 81, MN 50, MN 123 & MN 143, which are in the style of later texts such as the Jataka, Apadana & Buddhāpadāna, where a same person goes from life-to-life. These suttas are different to SN 22.79…
So how are these reincarnation suttas reconciled with SN 22.79, which to me sounds very different.
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.
What is also notable about SN 22.79 is:
ascetics and brahmins also recollect their manifold past abodes therefore these ascetics and brahmins appear to have the same 4th jhana power of the Buddha to recollect past nivasa
this recollection of past nivasa can only be of one certain khandha, as though a past life comprised on only one khandha, such as a past life as a ‘tree’ or ‘rock’.
I am surprised to see such a view stated! I am not at all convinced that someones ability to use logic, to research thoroughly, and to be vigorously unbiased in analysis, is invalidated by not being a member of the religion being studied! I see not logic in such an assumption.
It also seems from the discussion since you stated this, that Gombrich was likely right after all.
This perhaps highlights the danger in judging what all Buddhists must or must not believe merely on the basis of one sutta.
Anyway I have learned a lot from this discussion, so it has all been positive in my eyes.
That applies presumably whether you mean the moment-to-moment hypothesis, or also the life-to-life phenomenon. At least according to Buddhist doctrine, since our past lives are knowable.
However I disagree with you regarding either of the not being a ‘belief’. I ‘know’ that fire burns paper. That does not make it not a belief! I believe it! My belief is strong because I have seen it happen, many times. I have directly experienced it. Belief is “something one accepts as true or real”. It does not need to be something which is not ‘knowable’! And besides, as I mentioned before, past lives are knowable. You might disagree, and someone else might disagree that fire burns paper. Thus there are a variety of beliefs on the topic.
There is also something else I find quite troubling in this statement of yours. You seem to be implying that all scholarship by non-Buddhists should be rejected by Buddhists, simply because they are non-Buddhists. I feel this is quite a distortion of the principle of refuge.
If you were seriously ill, would you refuse to be treated by any non-Buddhist doctors? Would you also refuse any medicine which had been developed by non-Buddhist medical/pharmaceutical researchers?
What does ‘refuge’ mean?
Does accepting the fruits of a non-Buddhist scholar mean that you are therefore going for refuge from samsara in them? Hoping that they will be your permanent guide to enlightenment?
Personally, I ‘trust’ people contextually. If I want bread, I don’t go to the butcher. I go to the baker. I don’t trust a landscape gardener to fix a broken but highly valuable violin - I go to a luthier.
And whereas I might go to a meditation master for guidance towards enlightenment (this I could call refuge), I do not go to her for understanding Early Buddhism - not if she has not undergone rigorous study of the subject. For that, I would turn to an expert of Early Buddhism. And Gombrich is one such expert.
I like Deele’s explanation of the difference between rebirth and re-incarnation. It is a very important difference. Re-incarnation is the self manifested in another body. Rebirth is the conditioned arising of a mind-and-matter continuum after death, as result of the kamma created in the past lives. The question was already discussed at length over 2000 years ago between the monk Naagasena and the Greek king Milinda of Bactria.
There is no “must” to beliefs for Buddhists. Faith (saddhaa) or trust (okkappana) is only required to the extent necessary to undertake walking some steps on the path. … Because faith alone will not liberate from bondage, according to Buddha.