Rebirth, Reincarnation, Did the Buddha teach this? - Discussion
And, even so, Perhaps the level of Understanding and Teaching of Reincarntation was for the lower levels of Wisdom, not the Higher, as you seem to be implying...
Perhaps, some need to cling to the idea of higher and lower realms to spur and goad them in the right direction, at least at first. So, it may not be all bad...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.014.than.html
http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta2/14-Anamatagga-Samyutta/02-Duggatavaggo-e.html
So, in bold, it is said it is best to turn away from such all determinations, (teachings).
And , in a modern view it is indeed not possible to not find related DNA in any form of living being. This could be "Mother" , or "Father", so in that sense of DNA, yes, that does indeed seem to be the case. But, not as in someone is the reincarnation of a Mommy, but rather that the X chromosome is present.
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.64
Then knowledge and vision arose in me, and I knew:
Sure is my heart's release; this is my last birth; there is now no more becoming for me.’
I read the above succintly as the end of the "I, me and mine" delusion. But, do not understand the words as a reincarnation type of statement.
Psi
The word 'jati' or 'birth' in Dependent Origination is defined as the generation of the 'idea' of 'beings' ('satta'). Please read the defintion carefully & also the explanations of the word 'satta' in the Satta Sutta (SN 23.2) & SN 5.10.
Therefore, there is certainly 'rebirth' or 'birthing again' for unenlightened minds since the generation of the idea or delusion of 'beings' or 'self' continues to reappear.
For example, to believe 'Thanissaro', 'Bhikkhu Bodhi' or 'Analayo' are actually 'beings' (rather than mere empty elements or sunnata dhatu) is 'rebirth' (particularly given SN 5.10 states there is 'no beings to be found' & to think otherwise is the view of Mara).
As for reincarnation, it is obvious the Lord Buddha did not teach this (despite a few dodgy suttas here & there).
Since the Buddha taught there can be no arising of consciousness independent of sense organs (MN 38) & aggregates (SN 22.53), how can there be a 're-linking' consciousness after the ending of the physical body?
So why teach 'reincarnation' under a Buddha umbrella?
It is attractive to 'beings' that delight in or crave for life; it can promote morality; & it can keep the donations coming to the monks. MN 117 states the 'defiled kamma obsession' sides with morality.
In MN 26, the term 'alaya' (clinging) is discussed, how 'beings' (fettered by ignorance & craving) cling to life thus cannot penentrate the reality of Dependent Origination. Such 'beings' construe Dependent Origination to occur over 3 lifetimes via a reincarnation of a re-linking consciousness.
(14) Mata - Mother1. I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anāthapiṇḍika in Jeta's grove in Sāvatthi.From there the Blessed One addressed the monks: “Monks, without an end is the train of existence, a beginning cannot be pointed out of beings enveloped in ignorance and bound by craving, running from one existence to another. “Monks, you could not find a being who was not your mother in the past, in this long train of existences. “What is the reason? Monks, without an end is the train of existence, a beginning cannot be pointed out, of beings enveloped in ignorance and bound by craving, running from one existence to another.“Monks, it is suitable that you should turn away from all determinations, fade and be released from them.”
http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta2/14-Anamatagga-Samyutta/02-Duggatavaggo-e.html
You have (with discernment) highlighted the important part of this teaching.
This also castes doubt upon the translation because the beginning of the passage should generate dispassion rather than passion.
For example, if Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thanissaro or Analayo were actually my mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter in a past life, I would have passion (love) for those 'beings' rather than dispassion. The Dhammapada would not state to: "kill the mother & father".
Are we sure the Pali includes the word "your"? For example, in SN 15.1, the personal pronouns are clear: "ayaṃ me mātā" (this is my mother; but SN 15.1 is not inferring reincarnation; it is simply counting back the family generations).
Also, the word 'bhuta' does not necessarily mean physically 'existed'. It can mean 'comes to be', in terms of psychological 'becoming'.
We must keep in mind how the Satta Sutta defines the term 'satta' psychologically (rather than meta-physically).
So the sutta may actually say: "could you find a state of being that has not come to be [with the pain & suffering associated with identifying] as a mother, father, son, etc".
Regardless, not all suttas are words of the Buddha.
Na (not) so (you) bhikkhave (monks), satto (being) sulabharūpo (could find) yo (who ???) na (not) mātā (mother) bhūtapubbo (existed before) imina (for this) dīghena (long) addhunā (stretch).
To reject past and future rebirth would contradict the Buddhist concept of the ground, path and result, which must be explained on the basis of the disciplined or undisciplined mind. If we accept this argument, logically, we would also have to accept that the world and its inhabitants come about without causes and conditions. Therefore, as long as you are a Buddhist, it is necessary to accept past and future rebirth.
The world and its inhabitants come about through the forces, impacts, chemicals, etc, of biological reproduction. The law of kamma is about psychology rather than biology. 
There are many different logical arguments given in the words of the Buddha and subsequent commentaries to prove the existence of past and future lives. In brief, they come down to four points: the logic that things are preceded by things of a similar type, the logic that things are preceded by a substantial cause, the logic that the mind has gained familiarity with things in the past, and the logic of having gained experience of things in the past.
In DN 16, it is reported the Buddha said his true disciples, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.
Also, in AN 2.23, it is reported the Buddha described as 'slander' as 'what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata'.
Also, in AN 3.65, it is said 'logic' is not to be used for a ground of belief.
It follows the Buddha never said all things are preceded by things of a similar type & all things are preceded by a substantial cause.
There is the famous verse by Asajji to Upatissa (Sariputta), that said:
"Of all those things that from a cause arise,
Tathagata the cause thereof has told;
Therefore, all things do not arise from a cause. Only certain things arise from a cause.
About consciousness, for example, the Buddha said it only exists based on condition (paccaya) and not cause (hetu).
'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness' (aññatra paccayā natthi viññāṇassa sambhavo)
Similarly, about ignorance, the Buddha said it exits due to nutrient (ahara) but not due a cause (hetu).
(AN 10.61 ) "A first beginning of ignorance cannot be conceived, (of which it can be said), 'Before that, there was no ignorance and it came to be after that.' Though this is so, monks, yet a specific condition of ignorance can be conceived. Ignorance, too, has its nutriment, I declare; and it is not without a nutriment. And what is the nutriment of ignorance? 'The five hindrances,' should be the answer.
The difference between a 'cause' (hetu) & a 'condition' (paccaya) or 'nutriment' (ahara) is a cause is a preceding condition (example, the cause of decay is bacteria or the cause of craving is feeling) where as a condition or nutriment can act in assocation with the something.
In Dependent Origination, for example, the Buddha used the word 'paccaya' since ignorance & sankhara do not create or cause consciousness (in the way batteries cause light in a torch) but, instead ignorance & sankhara condition or influence consciousness to be in a certain way (such as preoccupied, unclear or agitated).
Therefore, the Buddha never explained what the causes of consciousness, ignorance, craving for existence, Nibbana, the four great elements, etc, were because these are unknowable.
In MN 64, the Buddha taught a new born child has an underlying tendency for defilements but not a 'familiarity' towards things. For example, why certain disciples were attracted to certain arahant teachers the Buddha attributed solely 'elements' (SN 15.14).
In MN 12, the Buddha said:
13. (4) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...
14. (5) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power..
In AN 1.49, it is said clarity is clouded by defilements and illuminated by the ending of defilements. It is not said clarity comes from clarity.
In Thailand, there was a famous monk named Ajahn Chah, reputed to have psychic powers & be an arahant. Yet in old age, Ajahn Chah developed dementia (or similar) and became unconscious. In other words, the mind no longer had clarity & awareness (at least externally).
Therefore, it appears obvious, just as electricity or fire powers light, the electrical neurons of the brain (or some other physical cause) powers the light of consciousness and, when the brain malfunctions or ages, so does clarity.
In MN 18 and elsewhere, the Buddha explained the arising of clarity & awareness (aka 'consciousness') is dependent on sense organs & sense objects. For example, in the cessation of perception & feeling, because consciousness no longer has any sense objects (namely, perception & feeling), it becomes unconscious.
That is why in SN 22.53 it is said for there to be the arising of consciousness without the other aggregates is impossible.
In DN 16, it is reported the Buddha said his true disciples, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.
Ultimately all these arguments are based on the idea that the nature of the mind, its clarity and awareness, must have clarity and awareness as its substantial cause. It cannot have any other entity such as an inanimate object as its substantial cause. This is self-evident. Through logical analysis we infer that a new stream of clarity and awareness cannot come about without causes or from unrelated causes. While we observe that mind cannot be produced in a laboratory, we also infer that nothing can eliminate the continuity of subtle clarity and awareness
The Ghatikara Sutta states: "Ananda, it might occur to you. ‘Did this young man Jotipala attain perfection then?’. ‘It should not be thought in that manner. I was Jotipala at that time.’
Yet the Khajjaniya Sutta states: "Any brahmans or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five clung to aggregates, or one among them. Which five? When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness. Any aggreggates whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
Similarly, MN 123 states as soon as the Bodhisatta was born from his mother's womb, he stood up firmly & declared: "I am the highest in the world".
Yet MN 64 states a new born child has no idea of self-view (due to their immaturity).
MN 143 states Anathapindika had never heard a teaching about non-attachment before & returned after death to visit Sariputta.
Yet somewhere in the SN it is stated Anathapindika was a stream-enterer thus Anathapindika must have understood non-attachment.
What is important is to go beyond doubt because every entertainment of reincarnation is a 'becoming' & contrary to the noble path.
It is also important to understand Buddhism became extinct in India because monks polluted the Buddha's teachings.
SN 56.123 states some animals pass away from the animal realm and are born into the human realm via realising the four noble truths. Are these actual animals, such as dogs, cats, horse, caterpillers, worms, etc, realising the four noble truths?
MN 122 and the Vinaya state monks should not engage in 'animal talk'. Does this mean behaving like Dr Doolittle?
Simple life experience tells us desires are connected to the physical body, even though they are immaterial in nature.
The simple fact that physical hunger pains cause mental desires show desires are related to the physical body.
The simple fact that most children have few sexual desires but as they mature into teenage puberty develop strong sexual & personality desires (due to new chemical hormones & physical development) shows desires are related to the physical body.
Many people, when their bodies get old, experience a reduction in sexual desires. When people are emotionally depressed, psychiatrists prescribed chemical medicines, which affect the brain and result in an emotional uplift.
Simple life experience tells us desires are connected to the physical body, even though they are immaterial in nature. That is why both innate & thought stimulated desires are an energy in the physical body that can cause physical changes, such as the erection of physical sex organs.
I recall a friend telling me after she had given birth to her child, she was in a shopping centre and heard a baby cry & her breasts automatically burst milk, wetting her clothing in public.
Meditation experience tells us when consciousness is fully aware of desires, consciousness calms & dissolves desires. It is like consciousness is like acid and desires are like specs of matter. Thus, consciousness cannot 'store' & 'transfer' desires since desires are related to the physical body.
That is why in hard core jhana, the desires stored in the body have been calmed away, the body has also been calmed and the mind experiences the expansiveness, clarity & unburdened freedom of jhana, where desires have ceased.
Consciousness & desires are contrary things. Consciousness cannot store & carry desires, just as acid cannot carry & store material particles. Consciousness is only sense awareness; that is all.
The old scriptures say: "Kamma is the field, consciousness the seed and craving the moisture". Yet the reincarnation theories appear to infer that kamma is the moisture, consciousness is the field (in which the seed is planted) and craving the seed (carried by the field & watered by kamma).
Imo, it is morally wrong to teach the above because the only reason a Buddha would ever infer there was reincarnation was to promote morality (non-harmful behaviours) amongst reincarnation believers.
This is why in the original Buddhist scriptures those teachings that infer there may be rebirth or reincarnation state the same person is reborn. MN 60 states (contrary to the higher teachings) that the ordinary householder has right view if they have the view of continued existence (i.e., 'eternalism').
People will not have any incentive to do good (apart from altruism) if they believe they are not the personal future recipients of their past personal karma.
For the Buddha, any inference of 'rebirth' is a moral teaching related to kammic inheritence. I have never read Buddha teachings about kammic inheritance & not-self in the same discourse. This is because the old scriptures state the realisation of not-self ends/eradicates karma (AN 6.63).
Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. AN 6.63
So, my main question is , Did the Buddha teach reincarntation?? Or not?
My vote is that the Buddha taught Anatta, and did not teach Reincarnation, or Rebirth.
Psi
If you think that there is actually a past where there was a Buddha who taught these things then that implies that there is reincarnation going on right now. If there is not the experience of being an experiencer located in a body in time and space, then to think anything about reincarnation is totally meaningless. Thinking might seemingly happen but there's no thinker producing the thoughts and as such the thoughts are totally empty of any meaning. The concepts lose their meaning when they're seen to not speak to anyone. The thoughts have not seen the one they claim to speak to or speak about. It's an empty narrative.
Edit,
Nicky, Yes and thank you for pointing out the above phenomenon. Admittedly, there are still times when the mind gets caught in the web of views. But, when Investigated the truth of the matter becomes apparent. The delusion of Self can be readily Investigated internally, but it is true also externally, that other forms are Anatta also. Though, internal and external are understood to be conventional terms. It does seem that once one sees the process of Dependent Origination, it can be seen all around, in people , animals, all that. Seeing how Craving arises, its cause, the cessation.
There always does , at times , seem to be a problem when using Language, it seems to be based upon a conventional view, and does not always lend well to Dhamma.
Still learning here, still Investigating, and it is all still really Interesting...
Guess that is a form of Craving...
Psi
That said, having 'right view' is not part of the web of views. The mind will vacilliate between being (bhava) & non-being (vibhava) if adhering to the view that Nibbana is non-conceptuality. The scriptures compare this to a dog chasing their tail. They explain Nibbana is the destruction of craving rather than the destruction of thought concepts (sankhara) & state each of the five aggregates are 'not-self' (anatta), which includes the sankhara khandha. The idea of 'concept & reality' is the same as the Brahministic idea of 'nama-rupa' (which the Buddha redefined). The scriptures use the words 'internal' & 'external' quite freely to represent ultimate truth (without vacillating papanca). Languge is only a problem when there is attachment & aversion to it. Void language is void. Mere words.
With metta
I am not aware that Buddha at any point asks anyone to hold some blind belief in rebirth. In the suttas it is presented in (using terminology from this site) a pragmatic fashion - here is what I did and here is what I experienced. If you were on a forum for hobbyist wood workers, would you reject some teaching from a master wood worker on what was possible simply because you had not yet acquired the skills stated to be necessary to carry out such a task? It is clear from the early texts that these things were to be known for yourself.
It is pointless to believe 'The Buddha' is supporting one's idiosyncratic point of view when one does not even understand the language of the scriptures. In the scriptures, the word 'birth' ('jati') primarily refers to a mental state rather than 'birth' from a woman. The definition is unambigious. It is appropriate to make references to the language itself to support one's point of view.
Your teacher does not understand the language of the suttas or kamma.
Hehe, okay. Well his understanding damn sure has helped mine!
Your teacher does not understand the language of the suttas or kamma.
Hehe, okay. Well his understanding damn sure has helped mine!
How?
How?
I feel much joy and mindfulness automatically beginning to bloom in my awareness throughout the day. I act on the desire to spread this joy to others in my interactions with them. I am able to investigate the range of my emotions, as well as the various conditions of my life, without ever needing to come to a conlusion about them. I am working on gaining sensory restraint, as well as disciplined action required by the task at hand (and in spite of my craving to not do so).