Re: Rebirth - Theravada & Tibetan beliefs [Yuttadhammo]

> > This is truly the case... if there were not naama or ruupa,
> it would
> > mean
> > (temporary?) nibbaana...
> Note however that there have been several recent scholarly
> discussions concerning the precise meaning of naama-ruupa
> which suggest that the original and authentic meaning of the
> term within early Buddhism was other than the one commonly
> accepted nowadays. For example, Rod Bucknall discusses the
> term at length in his article on the PS ("2Conditioned
> Arising Evolves" pp311-342 JIABS 22.2 1999) and persuasively
> concludes that naama-ruupa actually denotes mental and
> physical objects of perception (vijnana). This understanding
> of naama-ruupa avoids the problem you raise.

Hey Rod Bucknall, that sounds like a scholar :)

> > according to the Theravada, I would say that those beings
> have not yet
> > died.
> > You see, it's semantics :)
> Even if they have been cremated ? I disagree that it is a matter of
> semantics -- don't let dogmatics prevent you from even
> considering the possibility of experiencing this for
> yourself. My own limited experience with antaraabhava beings
> suggests that most people are pretty confused when they have
> died and can get even more confused and frightened when their
> bodies have been disposed of by burial or cremation.
> Autopsies are also very bad news. Actually, in that respect
> it is fortunate that most people get reborn quite soon after
> death, but some remain in the antaraabhava state for several
> weeks so it is best, but difficult these days, to keep a
> corpse "on hold" for a while or at least not harm or destroy
> it -- the antaraabhava being often tries for a while to
> re-enter the corpse through fear and attachment.

Okay, then by Theravada standards that would be a peta. Still semantics.

> If one can establish contact with the antaraabhava, the
> greatest service one can render is re-assurance and whatever
> degree of Dharma guidance one can manage or is appropriate.
> Theravada teaches that the quality of the last thought-moment
> before death is extremely important. Accepting the reality
> of the antaraabhava allows the possibility of helping that
> person overcome any negativity such as fear, attachment or anger.

Agreed.

> So, Bhante, rather than blindly accept received dogmas, you
> could try to verify the reality of the antaraabhava yourself
> by direct experience. As I said previously, it is simply a
> matter of gaining some accomplishment in the jhanas and being
> with dying / dead people -- actually, you do not even need to
> be in their presence, while one can't be anyway after the
> corpse have been removed. Even if you don't discern the
> antaraabhava, you will still get benefit by being reminded
> forcefully of the nature of sickness, suffering and death --
> which will eventually be very valuable to yourself when your
> time comes.

Well, I never like it when the conversations starts off with "rather than
blindly accept received dogmas..." but I'll take the bite this time... I
refuse to be swayed by this type of comment, my friend. Your experiences
are no more valid to me than these Buddha God worshippers' experiences of
the Buddha God. There is too much at stake for me to just follow my or your
limited jhana experiences and say this is this and that is that. Are you a
Buddha? No. The Buddha was, though...

What is at stake? The millions of people who rely on these texts for their
peace and happiness and meditation practice. If people start doubting this
or that teaching over some meditative experience, they might start doubting
more important teachings like nibbaana, or just give up in their confusion
over what is the real teaching of the Buddha. I don't see reason to adopt
your terms, as they are clearly dealt with in the pali tipitaka under
different but equally usable terms. In fact, though you still haven't
answered my question, the term "antarabhava" seems less than usable, because
it is clearly just another bhava, not in-between anything. Why do you call
it an antarabhava when it is clearly a bhava?

Dogmatically yours,

Yuttadogma