4

I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in a sense different from its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that our sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana. In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death. Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

10
  • Was this same question already asked and answered in Rebirth as cycle of consciousness?, or is this question somehow different from that (and if so, in what way)?
    – ChrisW
    Jul 9 '15 at 12:34
  • Hi Soumen and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section that you might find useful.
    – user2424
    Jul 9 '15 at 12:40
  • 1
    My question is different from the question cited above according to which rebirth continues after physical death. But if my interpretation is right, it happens only in the present life.
    – Soumen
    Jul 9 '15 at 12:41
  • I'm not quite understanding the basis for the question. Is this your own opinion that the Buddha used the term "Rebirth" in this way? This looks like a primarily opinion-based question to me. Correct me if im wrong.
    – user2424
    Jul 9 '15 at 14:20
  • I must admit that I do not have any evidence to support this proposition. Perhaps I have not read it anywhere explicitly but it occurred to me in the course of studying and thinking about Buddhism. Honestly, I do not feel logically comfortable with the traditional meaning of "Rebirth" in Buddhism. So this idea seems attractive to me. That is why I want to know whether it can be supported by evidence or should be discarded. I am sorry if this question is against the norm of this site. In that case, I must delete it.
    – Soumen
    Jul 9 '15 at 14:33

10 Answers 10

10

I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth"

The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old.

Probably he meant that our sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana.

Since the Buddha never taught the idea of self and denounced any view of self as leading to suffering (MN 22), this is highly unlikely to be correct.

In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death.

To repeat, according to early Buddhism, rebirth never happens. In this life, there is what is called khaṇika-maraṇa - death of a moment. Each momentary experience is born and dies, never to arise again. At the moment of conceptual death (sammuti-maraṇa), this process of momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has experienced "death by cutting off" (samuccheda-maraṇa) - i.e. of the defilements (q.v. Vism VIII.167) - in which case there is no further arising.

To put it succinctly, physical death isn't even real according to early Buddhism; it is a concept based on the artificial construct of a "being" who is "born".

Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

No.

7
  • 1
    Would you please reconcile, "The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as 'rebirth'" with for example The Truth of Rebirth which starts, "Rebirth has always been a central teaching in the Buddhist tradition", and/or Does Rebirth Make Sense? which says, "The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon", and, "rebirth occurs "with the breakup of the body, after death," which clearly implies [...] literally"?
    – ChrisW
    Jul 12 '15 at 10:44
  • 1
    @ChrisW OP is implying that something that has ceased might arise again. This doesn't happen. Talking about rebirth as a theory is fine, as long as we understand that in reality nothing is actually "reborn". It's a poor name for what really happens. Jul 12 '15 at 11:07
  • 1
    So did you mean, not literally, "the Buddha never used a term that could be translated as 'rebirth'", but rather, "... never described moment-to-moment experiences and never described self using a term that could be translated as 'rebirth'"? For example there is a description of kamma in which "he reappears in a happy destination" that's cited as an example of the "rebirth" doctrine; when you say "birth not rebirth" perhaps you're saying that "he reappears" means "he [re]appears however that's a new 'him' and not the same 'him'".
    – ChrisW
    Jul 12 '15 at 12:29
  • @ChrisW no, I meant "The Buddha never used a term that could be translated as rebirth." just as I said. New birth is related to old birth, but nothing is ever reborn. Jul 12 '15 at 12:51
  • 2
    @ChrisW that's okay, but no, the pali word is "upapajjati", which means something like "he arises". No sense of "re-" at all. Jul 12 '15 at 16:04
5

On searching the Pali cannon for the words 'death' and 'reborn' there are many suttas which include the phrase,

... with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn ...

In this Translator's Introduction, Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote,

This sutta teaches how to understand the relationship of consciousness to rebirth in a way that helps put an end to rebirth.

Although the Buddha never used any word corresponding to "rebirth" in his teachings, he did describe birth as a process following on death again and again as long as the appropriate conditions are present. In other words, even though he didn't use the word "rebirth," his teachings on birth are teachings on repeated birth: how it happens, how it inherently involves suffering and stress, and how it can be brought to an end.

The idea that death can be followed by birth was not universally accepted in India in the Buddha's time. As DN 2 and MN 101 show, some prominent contemplative schools actively rejected the idea of rebirth while others affirmed it. Thus when the Buddha taught rebirth, he wasn't simply following an unexamined cultural assumption. He was consciously taking a stand on one of the controversial issues of his time. However, his explanation of rebirth differed from other schools on both sides of the issue in that he avoided the question of whether or not there's a "what" that gets reborn, or if there is a "what," what it is (SN 12.12; SN 12.35). He also discouraged such speculations as, "If I take rebirth, what was I in the past, and what will I be in the future?" (MN 2)

He also writes the following, which agrees with what you asked in the question (not rebirth-during-this-life instead of rebirth-after-death, but at least rebirth-during-this-life as well as rebirth-after-death),

However, a being — in the Buddha's sense of the term — not only takes birth after the death of the body, it can also take birth, die, and be reborn many times in the course of a day — as attachment develops for one desire, ends, and then develops for another desire. This is why the processes leading to rebirth after death can be observed and redirected in the present moment during life. This is why the ability to understand and observe the processes of dependent co-arising is so important in putting an end to rebirth on all its many levels.

1
  • I will add that suttacentral.net/an5.38/en/sujato is a very good example of such a sutta. It is hard to understand how the Buddha was describing anything other than a straightforward notion of rebirth in a fortunate realm (after death and the breakup of the body) as a consequence of faith. Apr 29 at 19:05
3

I offer this article, "A Secular Evaluation of Rebirth", as a possible answer to your question.

  • It starts with,

    Insofar as we know anything about his dhamma, we know that the Buddha taught literal rebirth.

  • After looking at evidence gathered by Ian Stevenson, considering whether memories are trustworthy, and whether we have any physical theories for rebirth, it concludes,

    It is for reasons such as these that any contemporary, scientifically informed Buddhist practice should reject belief in rebirth and its associated kammic causation. The Path is rich enough without them. And while we can make good use of kamma and rebirth as metaphor for our moment-to-moment lived experience of change, or of skillful and unskillful action, we simply cannot make any more of it and expect to end up with a system which is compatible with our best understanding of the way the world works.

In general, I think the Pali canon does not agree with your interpretation, though the article makes clear that there are Buddhists who do (I am one of them). You might look to "Secular" Buddhism for more about this.

2
  • I find the article linked to in this answer to be problematic in a number of ways; is it appropriate to point out what I take to be flaws in a comment like this (very) one?
    – Adamokkha
    Jul 10 '15 at 18:24
  • @Adamokkha For what it's worth, I am happy to have an answer I point out criticized, that's why I'm here! I think we're all hear to learn, and whether at the end we agree or not, I appreciate all the feedback!
    – Zefareu
    Jul 12 '15 at 0:22
2

The interpretation you offer is not in line with the Buddha's teachings as I understand them. Other, western Buddhists have suggested similar interpretations, however, literal reincarnation is a repeated theme throughout the suttas. Here are a few reasons that I think the non-literal or 'this lifetime' interpretation of rebirth is not tenable.

(1) When discussing rebirth, as ChrisW pointed out, the phrasing that thematically appears makes it clear that it is meant to be literal, as in the Saleyyaka Sutta:

"Householders, it is by reason of conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct, that beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death (emphasis mine), reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. It is by reason of conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of righteous conduct, that some beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world."

The same phrasing appears elsewhere, e.g., in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta.

(2) The Buddha occasionally declares the destination of deceased persons; i.e., he says where they have been reborn (or that they will not be reborn).

(3) The Buddhist cosmology explicitly declares the existence of various hell and heaven realms and beings that populate them. These are possible destinations after death for a human being, as are rebirth as an animal or a hungry ghost.

(4) The Buddha distinguishes between the fruits of kamma in the 'here and now' and those in future births. That the Buddha is talking about reincarnation is made perfectly clear by this conversation with his disciple, General Siha, in the Siha Sutta:

When this was said, General Siha said to the Blessed One: "As for the four fruits of generosity visible in the here & now that have been pointed out by the Blessed One, it's not the case that I go by conviction in the Blessed One with regard to them. I know them, too. I am one who gives, a master of giving, dear & charming to people at large. I am one who gives, a master of giving; good people, people of integrity, admire me. I am one who gives, a master of giving, and my fine reputation is spread far & wide: 'Siha is generous, a doer, a supporter of the Sangha.' I am one who gives, a master of giving, and when I approach any assembly of people — noble warriors, brahmans, householders, or contemplatives — I do so confidently & without embarrassment. (Context note: The Buddha has just finished outlining the fruits of generosity in this life; they are those which the general says he enjoys, i.e., one is dear and charming, admired, of good reputation, and approaches assemblies confidently).

"But when the Blessed One says to me, 'At the break-up of the body, after death, one who gives, who is a master of giving, reappears in a good destination, the heavenly world,' that I do not know. That is where I go by conviction in the Blessed One."

"So it is, Siha. So it is. At the break-up of the body, after death, one who gives, who is a master of giving, reappears in a good destination, the heavenly world."

Again, the general directly knows how generosity leads to good results and certain consequences within the present life, but needs to rely upon the Buddha in faith for knowledge of what happens after death.

I think there are more reasons but this should be enough to establish that the Buddha of the suttas was talking about literal rebirth.

Finally, in the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha declares that if one undertakes right actions, they will benefit in the here and now and can also be assured that (although they doubt the doctrine of reincarnation) if there is rebirth that is causally connected to one's deeds, then one will be born in a good destination.

Further reading: For what I think is an interesting discussion of this and other issues of western Buddhist modernism, see B. Alan Wallace's critique of Stephen Batchelor's views on Buddhism: Distorted visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and atheist and Batchelor's reply: An open letter to B. Alan Wallace

1

First I will offer some background before I say anything about what the Buddha said or didn't about rebirth.

Logically speaking, both view points are true since consciousness is not affected at the time of physical death or rebirth.

You mention in the comments that you are not comfortable with the traditional idea of rebirth, which is okay, take what you can verify and trust. If tomorrow you change your mind because of new insights, that's okay. If not, that's okay too. You don't have to agree with others, be independent using your logical faculties as your guide.


My submission is that in 2500 years the numerous brilliant minds in Buddhism and other Indian traditions were not all so dense as to not be aware of material reality, and there were certainly some schools (Lokayatika) who were only concerned with impermanence in the material reality.

In fact there is the Lokayatika Sutta where the Buddha specifically confronts the position of material reality being the only truth.


Heraclitus, a near contemporary of the Buddha has a pithy saying that "You could not step twice into the same river." meaning the body and mind is ever changing. This is often quoted by modern dharma teachers in the West because it perfectly reflects the Buddhist teaching on emptiness, and impermanence.

Here is what the Dhammapada says on impermanence in the present moment -

Sabbe sankhara anicca" ti yada pannaya passati atha nibbindati dukkhe esa maggo visuddhiya.

Dhammapada Verse 277: "All conditioned phenomena are impermanent"; when one sees this with Insight-wisdom, one becomes weary of dukkha (i.e., the khandhas). This is the Path to Purity.

Certainly traditional rebirth is heavily referenced in the earliest sutras of the Buddha.

There are many references to rebirth in the early Buddhist scriptures. These are some of the more important; Mahakammavibhanga Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 136); Upali Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 56); Kukkuravatika Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 57); Moliyasivaka Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 36.21); Sankha Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 42.8).

See more: Wikipedia-Rebirth(Buddhism)

The specifics of the concept of rebirth however was left sufficiently vague by the Buddha, since he was first and foremost concerned with liberation from suffering, and not in solving philosophical debates of the intellectual kind.

This has led to several schools of thought regarding a persistent self and nuanced details of rebirth. However, there were no Buddhist schools of thought denying rebirths, which may be instructive.

The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṅa Sūtra, especially influential in East Asian Buddhist thought, goes so far as to speak of it as our true self (ātman). Its precise metaphysical and ontolo-gical status is, however, open to interpretation in the terms of different Mahāyāna philosophical schools; for the Madhyamikas it must be empty of its own existence like everything else; for the Yogacarins, following the Laṅkāvatāra, it can be identified with store consciousness, as the receptacle of the seeds of awakening.
Source: The Foundations of Buddhism, Gethin, 1998, page 52

I'll finally leave you with this,

SN 56.31 Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa1 forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"

"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"

1

"In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death. Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?"

This view is incompatible with the doctrine of anatta in Buddhism and thus fails the three seals and cannot be true dhamma. It is also directly contradicted by the Pali Canon and the Buddha himself. See AN 5.38:

They first teach Dhamma to the faithful, not so much the unfaithful. When their body breaks up, after death, the faithful are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.

Those wishing to advocate that rebirth was not taught by the Buddha should honestly grapple with and explain why we should adopt a tortured reading of the above sutta or disparage the sutta to conform to biased views against the Buddha's teaching on faith leading to a fortunate rebirth.

1

In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death.

No, there is no support for what you are claiming. The Buddha said beings according to their actions are born in heaven or hell after death. So the teaching is a crucial ethical underpinning to Buddism and should not be discounted or attached as its been done by most of the answered given here.

The Buddha did teach re-birth. Unless there is a hidden agenda to discredit his teaching it should not even be brought to question.

Quoted below is part Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta

"The recluse Gotama knows the three knowledge's. Saying it thus they would be saying the right thing, and not blaming me falsely. Vaccha, whenever I desire, I recollect the manifold previous births, such as one birth, two births, with all modes and all details, thus I recall the manifold previous births. Vaccha, when I desire, with the purified heavenly eye beyond human, see beings disappearing and appearing, in un-exalted and exalted states, beautiful and ugly, in good and bad states—I see beings, according their actions. Vaccha, destroying desires, my mind released and released through wisdom, here and now by myself realizing I abide. Vaccha, if it is said, the recluse Gotama knows the three knowledge's, saying it thus, you would be saying the right thing and not blaming me falsely’.

When this was said, the wandering ascetic Vacchagotta said thus to the Blessed One: "Good Gotama, are there any laymen who without giving up the lay bonds, would make an end of unpleasantness after death?"

"No, Vaccha, there aren’t any laymen who, without giving up the fetters of attachment have made an end of unpleasantness.."

"Good Gotama, are there any laymen born in heaven after death without giving up the fetters of attachment?"

"Vaccha, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred, many more, are born in heaven after death without giving up the fetters of attachment."

"Good Gotama, are there any ascetics who have made an end of unpleasantness after death?"

"No, Vaccha, there isn’t any ascetic, who has made an end of unpleasantness, after death."

"Good Gotama, are there any ascetics who are born in heaven after death?

"Vaccha, I recollected so many as ninety one world cycles and did not see any ascetic born in heaven, except for a certain one who was of the view, there are results for actions."

"Good Gotama, if that is so, all other faiths are useless even without a birth in heaven."

The Blessed One said thus and wandering ascetic Vacchagotta delighted in the words of the Blessed One.

1

OP: I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in a sense different from its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that ... sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until ... Nirvana.

Yes, the above is right. I removed "our" and "we".

When most people think of rebirth, they think the permanent consciousness that has existed from childhood will continue into another life. They think consciousness is self. However, the Buddha taught that consciousness is impermanent, constantly changing and is dependently originated.

This is found in MN 38:

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

The rest of the sutta explains the dependent arising of consciousness and other things.

So, the Buddha did indeed teach that it is the mental idea of the self that is (re)born. It is individuality that is (re)born, not the individual. Please also see this answer.

This is also in line with the teaching of sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self.

OP: In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death. Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

OUR present life? After OUR physical death? Who is "our"?

From SN 12.20:

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the past, thinking: ‘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? Having been what, what did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the future, thinking: ‘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? Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and where will it go?’

The process of birth and death of the mental idea of the self continues until Nirvana. But you can't ask whose self it is. The first noble truth is that "there is suffering". It's not your suffering or my suffering. It's just suffering. And this suffering is ended by the cessation of craving and ignorance. Also don't ask whose ignorance and whose craving.

Believing that physical death is a special moment that fundamentally changes the process of birth (of the mental idea of the self) that happens from moment to moment is the same as believing that something ultimately existed and has ceased to exist (i.e. annihilationism).

7
  • Does the process of rebirth - given your def. - continue after physical death in the same manner as it occurred before physical death? If not, then why and in what way is the process different? Apr 30 at 17:51
  • @YesheTenley The process of birth and death of the mental idea of the self continues until Nirvana. But you can't ask whose self it is. The first noble truth is that "there is suffering". It's not your suffering or my suffering. It's just suffering. And this suffering is ended by the cessation of craving and ignorance. Also don't ask whose ignorance and whose craving.
    – ruben2020
    Apr 30 at 17:54
  • I don't think this answers the question. Do you think it is wrong - from a conventional standpoint - to say that Ruben is continuously reborn in this very life? Using your def. of reborn? I don't understand your insistence on not being able to ask certain questions... I'm just speaking conventionally and these are conventional questions, right? Apr 30 at 17:59
  • @YesheTenley Think about "all phenomena is not self" and ponder the quote from SN 12.20. A specific identity like Yeshe Tenley is just a convention.
    – ruben2020
    Apr 30 at 18:02
  • I agree! What I don't understand here is the inability to answer the straightforward question whether 'rebirth' continues in the same manner and same process before physical death as it does after physical death. I contend there is no difference whatsoever. Do you agree? I also contend that anyone who disagrees will necessarily be in contradiction to the doctrine of not-self. Do you agree? Apr 30 at 18:05
0

I suspect the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in a sense different from its traditional meaning. Probably he meant that our sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana.

Yes. The above is correct. The term that needs to be understood is "satta" ("a being"), which is synonymous with "sense of self" and which defined in SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 as "attachment" and "a wrong view". In the suttas with the sloppy translation of "rebirth", what is "reborn" is "the being" or "self-delusion" in another mental state of attachment (such as the state of suffering or hell due to bad kamma), as found in the following stock phrase:

When my mind had become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, spotless, rid of taints, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—I extended it toward knowledge of the death and rebirth of beings (sattānaṃ).

So evaṃ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe vigatūpakkilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte sattānaṃ cutūpapātañāṇāya cittaṃ abhininnāmesiṃ.

With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw beings passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how beings are reborn according to their deeds: ‘These dear beings did bad things by way of body, speech, and mind. They spoke ill of the noble ones; they had wrong view; and they chose to act out of that wrong view. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. These dear beings, however, did good things by way of body, speech, and mind. They never spoke ill of the noble ones; they had right view; and they chose to act out of that right view. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ And so, with clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw sentient beings passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how beings are reborn according to their deeds.

MN 4

Note: I removed the English word "sentient" from the above translation; since it does not exist in the Pali



In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death. Is there any evidence in the early canon to support that the Buddha used the term "rebirth" in the above sense?

Correct. I have provided the evidence. The word "a being" ("satta") or "beings" ("sattānaṃ") refers to "attachment" and "wrong views" rather than a metaphysical organism. Similarly, the word "kaya", sloppily translated as "body", actually means a "collection" or "grouping" of the five aggregates. Similarly, the word often translated as "death", namely, "marana", does not generally mean physical death but means the "death of the being" or the "death of a self-delusion". This is literally defined in the teaching of Dependent Origination (SN 12.2), where "birth" and "death" are literally defined as the production of views of "beings" based on the manifestations of different aggregates acquired via sense experience and the subsequent aging & death of these wrong views of "beings" (such as "my hair is getting grey", "my teeth are rotting", "my wife's once beautiful skin is wrinkling", "my mother, my father, my son, my daughter has died").

Suffering can only occur when these wrong views of "beings" exist. If there are no views of "beings" then when the aggregates end no suffering occurs. Thus in SN 22.85, for example, the ending of the life of an arahant is simply regarded as the ending of the aggregates (rather than the "death" of a "self" or "a being").

0

meant that our sense of separate self is repeatedly being born, decaying, dying and being reborn until we attain Nirvana. In this sense, rebirth happens only in our present life and not after our physical death.

Buddha explained that there is a doctrine of self. Like there is a doctrine where a Santa Claus is climbing through the chimney, bringing gifts at night. Likewise there is a doctrine of a self & things belonging to a self.

Children might be inclined to adhere to the doctrine of Santa, grasping the circumstances with wrong view, seeing what isn't there, not seeing what is there.

Intellect adheres to the doctrine of self as that adherence is also the base underdeveloped nature of the intellect.

Santa Claus isn't nothing, the words mean something, they mean something in that doctrine of the Santa Claus.

A man working as a Santa at the mall might be grasped with wrong view to be a Santa due to adherence to the doctrine and a child might experience a range of experiences because of it.

A discerning person will know the doctrine of Santa as a false doctrine when it comes to understanding the senses & what the senses present and will not see what isn't there.

Similarly there is a doctrine of self, the word self means something. Because of the adherence to the doctrine there is a grasping with wrong view of the senses & what the senses present, there being a grasping with wrong view there comes to be seeing of what isn't there and a range of experiences can be spoken of as coming into play because of the delusion.

As to rebirth, when we speak about a being, that is discussing the doctrine of self because we here assume that there is a being. If we speak about a Santa, we are talking about something associated with the doctrine of the Santa according to which Santa is at the North Pole etc.

Therefore when we talk about a being reborn we shouldn't look for or try to deduct that which is reborn because that would be like getting up in the middle of the night to catch Santa.

It's like changing your name. Your name went from being thus to being otherwise due to past development but we know your name can't be pinned down as a truth & reality neither before nor after the change. Therefore when we talk about names we are making certain assumptions for a doctrinal framework.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.