Dear Bhante,
Your wrote:
> But then, I think that is no way to argue, because I will say that my
> experience
> accords with the Pali Canon, and you will say that yours accords with the
> Tibetan Book of the Dead.
Actually, I am not relying upon the TBD at all. As you will realize, I do
not give the Theravada Abhidharma any special status, but I do regard the
Nikayas and the Vinaya as largely authoritatitive although my position here
is similar to that expressed by other people recently -- one of caution, not
dismissing suttas out of hand unless there are good reasons to suspect their
authenticity. Any personal experience that I have had which seems to
corroborate the reality of an antaraabhava accords, to my mind, with many
passages included in the Nikayas. Gradually reading through the list of
suttas given by Ven Kumaara confirms my belief that there is an
antaraabhave -- whatever one might like to call it.
> Please, try to refrain from such language as "when you become a little
> more
> mature." It is rhetorical and serves no good purpose in debate,
> especially
> in front of such a large group of people.
Sorry if you misunderstood my words -- as I sent it, I had a feeling that
you might. I was not implying that you are necessarily intellectually
immature -- I meant more mature in years since I suspect you are still
relatively a yound man. When we are young, we often tend to see things in
stark black and white but hopefully, as we age, we become a little more
mellow. That's all.
> I think you misunderstand... I'm not sure if you are calling ME stupid and
> immature, or just your reply.
No, not you but that kind of statement -- whether it comes from you or me.
> What you call this is up to you, but I think "antaraabhava" is improper
> according to the Three Pali Canon.
Out of interest, where in the Thervadin Abhidharma is the antaraabhava
explicitly denied ?
> I think it is a problem that you have so many texts to choose from, none
> of which you really trust.
Could I please remind you here of your earlier words "please point out where
they are invalid without including such personally depreciative statements".
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ! You really have no
idea which or how many texts I trust, so would you please refrain from these
unfounded personally depreciative statements.
> I too hope you stop insulting people on public forums
Tu quoque ! Look to the beam in your own eye first.
> The term "antarabhava" seems less than usable, because it is clearly just
> another bhava, not in-between anything. Why do you call it an
> antaraabhava
> when it is clearly a bhava?
The term itself is not important -- it was not me who coined the term. The
existence or not of some kind of transitional phase between death and
rebirth is. As far as I understand the orthodox Theravadin take on this is,
briefly, one of immediate rebirth. To represent this crudely in a graphic
form, we have a terminating sequence of thought moments and a beginning
sequence of thought moments: .... WXYZABCD ... where Z is the last thought
moment of one life and A is the first thought moment of the next life, and
it is claimed that there is absolutely no gap between one life and the next.
Have I got this right ? If so, I am mightily puzzled when the Buddha speaks
of the gandhabba in the suttas. If my understanding of the Theravadin
doctrine of death/rebirth is correct, there is no role or need for a
gandhabba. Please elucidate why the Buddha speaks of the gandhabba as a
necessary factor for conception to occur but do first look carefully at all
the data the Nikayas give on the gandhabba.
Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge