Why don't some buddhists believe in karma and rebirth?

score:4

Accepted answer

If there are any Buddhists who hold the view that no beings are reborn, they are certainly right in that there is no absolute thing as a being or self, as Bhikkhuni Vajira reaffirmed to Mara in SN 5.10:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

However, this does not mean that there are no beings at all. It simply means that "being" is a convention to denote the presence of the five aggregates occurring together. There is no absolute entity called being that exists standalone and independently of everything. The same thing applies to the self. There is no standalone or independent thing called self, but the self arises when the five aggregates operate together in the same way music arises when different parts of a violin work together to produce music.

This does not mean that suffering ends at death. Suffering only ends with Nibbana. Suicide is not a means to end suffering.

The fact that suffering does not end with death is evidenced in so many suttas, including MN 60, MN 36, DN 15, SN 15, MN 19, MN 57, SN 44.9, MN 83, DN 2, Dhp 153-154.

Some secular Buddhists claim that rebirth is a moment-to-moment change in one's state of mind, but it does not refer to physical rebirth. However, in MN 19, the Buddha clearly stated that with the break-up of the body, there are beings who are reborn elsewhere:

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile the Noble Ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

Also DN 15 clearly shows rebirth into a human womb from the context of dependent origination (also see this answer):

"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"

"No, lord."

"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"

"No, lord."

"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"

"No, lord."

"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."

Another good sutta is SN 44.9 which states:

And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"

"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

Here's another - Dhammapada 400:

Akkodhanam vatavantam
silavantam anussadam
dantam antimasariram1
tamaham brumi brahmanam

Verse 400: Him I call a brahmana, who is free from anger, who practises austerity, who is virtuous and free from craving, who is controlled in his senses and for whom this body (i.e., existence) is the very last.

Footnote 1. antimasariram: lit., one who has the last body. This is his last body because he will not be reborn; he is an arahat.

And another - SN 12.19:

The Blessed One said this:

“Bhikkhus, for the fool, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, this body has originated. For the fool that ignorance has not been abandoned and that craving has not been utterly destroyed. For what reason? Because the fool has not lived the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering. Therefore, with the breakup of the body, the fool fares on to another body. Faring on to another body, he is not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from suffering, I say.

So, why don't some Buddhists believe in kamma and rebirth?

Well, the answer is that they hold the wrong view of annihilationism, as stated in DN 1 (below). Most of them hold the view of physicalism, that nothing exists beyond the physical world, just as flat-Earthers think the Earth is flat because it apparently appears so to their limited senses.

"There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form; it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self — divine, having material form, pertaining to the sense sphere, feeding on edible nutriment. That you neither know nor see, but I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self — divine, having material form, mind-made, complete in all its limbs and organs, not destitute of any faculties. That you neither know nor see, but I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging to the base of infinite space, (reached by) the complete surmounting of perceptions of material form, by the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, by non-attention to perceptions of diversity, (by contemplating) "Space is infinite." That you neither know nor see, but I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging to the base of infinite consciousness, (reached by) completely surmounting the base of infinite space (by contemplating): "Consciousness is infinite." That you neither know nor see. But I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death — at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging to the base of nothingness, (reached by) completely surmounting the base of infinite consciousness (by contemplating): "There is nothing." That you neither know nor see. But I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death — at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging to the base of neither perception nor non-perception, (reached by) completely surmounting the base of nothingness (by contemplating): "This is the peaceful, this is the sublime." That you neither know nor see. But I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death — at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

"It is on these seven grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being. Whatever recluses or brahmins proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being, all of them do so on these seven grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

Upvote:-3

Some Buddhists don't believe in karma and rebirth because experiential verification of the existence of these things can only come about as a result of yogic equipoise. Without witnessing for one's self, the claim that karma and rebirth exists is equivalent to the claim that thetans exist.

Upvote:0

That may be explained in this answer and this document (Anattā & Rebirth by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu).

In summary I think these say that:

  • Because of anatta there is no self which can be reborn:

    When there is no attā, then what is reborn? What or who is reborn? Forgive us for being forced to use crude language, but this question is absurd and crazy.4 In Buddhism, there is no point in asking such a thing. There is no place for it in Buddhism. If you ask what will be reborn next, that's the craziest, most insane question. If right here, right now, there is no soul, person, self, or attā, how could there be some "who" or "someone" that goes and gets reborn? So there is no way one can ask "who will be reborn?"Therefore, the rebirth of the same person does not occur. But the birth of different things is happening all the time. It happens often and continuously, but there is no rebirth. There is no such thing, in reality, as rebirth or reincarnation. That there is one person, one "I" or "you," getting reborn is what reincarnation is all about. If all is anattā, there is nothing to get reborn. There is birth, birth, birth, of course. This is obvious. There is birth happening all the time, but it is never the same person being born a second time. Every birth is new. So there is birth, endlessly, constantly, but we will not call it "rebirth" or "reincarnation."

  • "Birth" means various things including the arising of self-view

    There are three kinds of birth. The first is the kind of birth that everybody knows about, physical birth. The body is born out of the womb, and then grows older and older, and then dies and is put in a coffin. That is physical birth, it leads to physical death. The second kind of birth is mental. It happens within the mind following the stream of dependent origination. Whenever there is the thought "I am," "I do," "I act," "I have," "I own," "I want," "I get," "I exist," the birth of any one of these "I" thoughts is one birth. This is the "birth" of upādĀna along the stream of paÊicca-samuppāda, which is the birth of the ego. Such mental or spiritual birth is another kind of birth. The third kind of birth is very difficult for most people to understand. It is when one of the āyatana, that is, sense bases, performs its respective function. Performing some function means "that thing is born." You might not understand that when the eye performs the function of seeing, then the eye is born.

In summary, I think their saying "don't believe in rebirth" means "don't believe that there's a same self or real self which is reborn".

Upvote:0

One can look at experience through two orthognal frames of reference, both perhaps only ideological, since quantum mechanics doesn't offer as simple an answer (no one frame of reference to examine experience from):

1 - now, for all space, given conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, the sum of All time = 0; is empty (0 is an imperfect sign for Nagarjuna's emptiness)

2 - here (not geographically, but self-centered), for all time, the sum of All space = 0, as in empty.

Buddhists have issue with rebirth because it is an inferred truth, at least before enlightenment. It is a truth that aims to encompass the totality of experience - to be ultimate - whilst remaining within conventional language - requiring a Self, axiomatically, to be evident.

Upvote:0

It is against the Noble Eightfold Path and Wrong View.

In my opinion the reason is because of the prediction made by The Buddha in the Ani Sutta:

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.

They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering.

But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited.

They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about. (Ani Sutta, SN 20.7)

You can see the prediction coming true nearly exactly as The Buddha predicted with literary works full of elegant words and rhetoric attempting to replace The Buddha's original teachings. Many people prefer to hear things pleasing to them regardless of it's true or false.

Upvote:1

Because they believe there is something real and substantial that ends with the death and breakup of the body. In other words, they (either consciously or subconsciously) believe the atman exists and is real and substantial and that it is utterly annihilated at death with the break up of the body.

Upvote:1

It is wrong view to not believe in kamma & results. However, MN 60 does not refer to any "afterlife". The words "this world" & "the other world" do not necessarily refer to an afterlife. Note: the translation of "next world" is wrong. The Pali word "para" in "para loka" means "other".

Below is merely a sample of suttas showing "the worlds" are within the mind:

It is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the world, the origination of the world, the cessation of the world and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the world. AN 4.45

And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world. SN 12.44

I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. SN 35.135

Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought processes and the mind in one point internally appeased, without thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with equanimity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too, abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions, for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa lokassa). MN 79

Bhikkhus, there are three kinds of persons found existing in the world. What three? (1) “Here, bhikkhus, some person generates afflictive bodily activities, afflictive verbal activities, and afflictive mental activities. In consequence, he is reborn in an afflictive world. When he is reborn in an afflictive world, afflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by afflictive contacts, he feels afflictive feelings, exclusively painful, as in the case of hell-beings. (2) “Someone else generates unafflictive bodily activities, unafflictive verbal activities, and unafflictive mental activities. In consequence, he is reborn in an unafflictive world. When he is reborn in an unafflictive world, unafflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by unafflictive contacts, he feels unafflictive feelings, exclusively pleasant, as in the case of the devas of refulgent glory. (3) “Still another generates bodily activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive, verbal activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive, and mental activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive. In consequence, he is reborn in a world that is both afflictive and unafflictive. When he is reborn in a world that is both afflictive and unafflictive, both afflictive and unafflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by both afflictive and unafflictive contacts, he feels both afflictive and unafflictive feelings, mingled pleasure and pain, as in the case of human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower worlds. “These, bhikkhus, are the three kinds of persons found existing in the world.” AN 3.23

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. AN 6.39

Upvote:2

Many Buddhist are not Sotapanna hence they still have the self-view. They think what Buddha taught wat that the same person is re-born. Buddha never said the same person is re-born. What he taught was the Dependent Origination. Our action has a result. (kamma and Vipaka) Once you understand Dependent Origination you can accept the Kamma and Re-birth. Buddhist Kamma and re-birth is not the same as what is taught in Hinduism. Some Buddhist think that the Buddhist teaching of Kamma and rebirth is the same d Hinduism.

More post

Search Posts

Related post