text:
Do ALL thoughts with lobha (craving), dosa (aversion) and moha (ignorance) create bad karma?
This answer stated that:

Even if you sit in the dark and do nothing, you can still be creating
bad Kamma. It depends on whether you have Samma Sati or not. Whatever
you do can create bad Karma as long as your thoughts are defiled with
craving, aversion and ignorance.

So ALL thoughts that are defiled with craving, aversion and ignorance (lobha, dosa, moha) create bad karma? So does it mean when we want something (for example, I want to go to X country for my next vacation), does that thought creates bad karma because such thought is rooted in lobha (craving)?

Starting from having thoughts imbued with the three poisons, one would have intentions and intentions lead to kamma by way of actions, speech and thoughts.

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner;
they have mind as
their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil
mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint
of the ox that draws the cart.
Dhp 1

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.
AN 6.63

“Mendicants, there are these three unskillful roots. What three?
Greed, hate, and delusion.
Greed is a root of the unskillful. When a greedy person chooses to act
by way of body, speech, or mind, that too is unskillful. When a greedy
person, overcome by greed, causes another to suffer under a false
pretext—by execution or imprisonment or confiscation or condemnation
or banishment—thinking ‘I’m powerful, I want power’, that too is
unskillful. And so these many bad, unskillful things are produced in
them, born, sourced, originated, and conditioned by greed.
Hate is a root of the unskillful. When a hateful person chooses to act
by way of body, speech, or mind, that too is unskillful. When a
hateful person, overcome by hate, causes another to suffer under a
false pretext—by execution or imprisonment or confiscation or
condemnation or banishment—thinking ‘I’m powerful, I want power’, that
too is unskillful. And so these many bad, unskillful things are
produced in them, born, sourced, originated, and conditioned by hate.
Delusion is a root of the unskillful. When a deluded person chooses to
act by way of body, speech, or mind, that too is unskillful. When a
deluded person, overcome by delusion, causes another to suffer under a
false pretext—by execution or imprisonment or confiscation or
condemnation or banishment—thinking ‘I’m powerful, I want power’, that
too is unskillful. And so these many bad, unskillful things are
produced in them, born, sourced, originated, and conditioned by
delusion. Such a person is said to have speech that’s ill-timed,
false, meaningless, not in line with the teaching and training.
AN 3.69

i want to upvote if you can mention a little about the AN 6.63 controversy of Sujato's translation or include an alternative because that is a very pivotal piece of expression designating kamma & cetana, the english 'choice' is something a monk suggested in 21st century, it has classically & traditionally been translated 'intending one acts'

Sujato pins in; It is intention that I call deeds.
Cetanāhaṁ, bhikkhave, kammaṁ vadāmi.
For after making a choice one acts
Cetayitvā kammaṁ karoti

Ceta is root in both cases, Cetanāhaṁ & Cetayitvā, Sujato is being interetative. The literal translation is closer to 'intending one acts'

@Letsbuddhism I have switched to the Thanissaro translation for AN 6.63. Thanks.

@Letsbuddhism What exactly is the controversy regarding Sujato?  I'm curious. Could you point  me to sources?

The controversy is that many people are upset about his first draft of translations because in so many places he does not translate literally but as to his own interpretation. I've talked to him about a particular case and he seemed to care more about relating what he thinks the Buddha meant rather than a literal translation. You can read the discussion here https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/request-for-ven-thanissaros-translation-of-an10-58-to-be-uploaded/12657/17

I just wish he made footnotes for all the interesting spots instead of just putting out his interpretative version as a line for line translation. I hope his final drafts will be otherwise and it would be great if he just explained the spots where he took liberties. He took many and in important spots, technical terms like sankhara and cetana he mixes up as 'choices'.

@Letsbuddhism thank you for sharing the link.  it was very helpful.

I would not say Ven. Sujato’s and Ven. Bodhi’s translations are wrong in the AN10.58. Amatogadha (deathless) is an analogy of the word Nibbāna in Buddhism. It means only Nibbāna could make you truly immortal. There are four characteristics of Dukkha nirodha sacca (Nibbāna), one is amata (deathlessness). All things culminate in the deathless. (=All things finish in Nibbāna. )

https://www.karunasevena.cz/four-noble-truths
The extinction of suffering has four characteristics, being:  1. An escape from suffering, nissaraṇa    2. Free from disturbance, viveka  3.   Unconditioned, asaṅkhata 4. Deathlessness, amata

creates karma and samsaric existence ie. the truth of suffering but not necessarily bad karma

You want to go to X country for your next vacation, then you might lie to your boss because you want to stay longer vacation.
But lie is impossible for the noble one.
In Abhi.Patthana, the great explanation of the dependent origination, there are "PakatUpanissayaPaccaya- strong birthplace for daily, habitually performed or accumulated realities".
Every vanished things, nibbana, and imagination can causes the next arising realities, counting from the 3rd arising moment (after the past reality vanished) and go on until Parinibbana (the death of Arahanta).
Every bad karma accumulate their habit for the next time and next level arising, until the end of the roots.
And it is arising very fast, trillion times per second, so if the practitioner has no stronger enough concentration meditation, the practitioner will lack of seeing some 5 hindrances. And even the
practitioner who has stronger enough concentration meditation (Jhanalabhi,Vasipatto) will lack of seeing a tanha, mana, ditthi arising moment if they never listen the Buddha's teaching because it means they has strong enough past Parami to analysis life as the dependent origination as the fastest and smallest arising&vanishing moment to get the reality's 3 characteristics for destroy the root forever and enlighten 4 AriyaSacca.

If it is connected with delusion then it will more or less be detrimental and these thoughts should be obliterated.

The Blessed One said, "Monks, before my self-awakening, when I was still just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keep dividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, and thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will, & thinking imbued with harmlessness another sort.

“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of abandoning? Here, a bhikkhu does not tolerate an arisen sensual thought; he abandons it, dispels it, terminates it, and obliterates it. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will … an arisen thought of harming … bad unwholesome states whenever they arise; he abandons them, dispels them, terminates them, and obliterates them. This is called the perception of abandoning.

When, indeed, bhikkhus, evil unskillful thoughts due to reflection on an adventitious object are eliminated, when they disappear, and the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated just within (his subject of meditation), through his reflection on an object connected with skill, through his pondering on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts, his endeavoring to be without attentiveness and reflection as regards those thoughts or through his restraining, subduing, and beating down of the evil mind by the good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate, that bhikkhu is called a master of the paths along which thoughts travel. The thought he wants to think, that, he thinks; the thought he does not want to think, that, he does not think. He has cut down craving, removed the fetter, rightly mastered pride, and made an end of suffering."


text:
Nirodha samapatti - cessation of all, or only clinging, perception and feeling?
This is based on the comments below this answer.
From this page, we find the commentary:

nirodha-samāpatti 'attainment of extinction' (S. XIV, 11), also called
saññā-vedayita-nirodha, 'extinction of feeling and perception', is the
temporary suspension of all consciousness and mental activity,
following immediately upon the semi-conscious state called 'sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception' (s. jhāna, 8).

And also this commentary:

According to the commentary, "seclusion" here stands for Unbinding. On
emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, and having had
contact with emptiness/the signless/the undirected, the mind inclines
naturally to a direct experience of Unbinding.

On the other hand, the sutta states:

Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension
of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the
cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom,
their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha spoke of
progressive cessation in a definitive sense.”
AN 9.61

My question is:
Does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha refer to a super trance-like state beyond the 8th jhana in which the practitioner becomes completely unconscious without any mental activity (like what the commentary above suggests) with cessation of ALL perception and feeling?
Or does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha refer to Nibbana-element with residue aka Unbinding-property with fuel remaining of Iti 44 (please see Ven. Thanissaro's footnotes), where the arahant is fully conscious with mental activity, but has cessation of only the clinging (or tainted) perception and feeling? This is related to the clinging aggregates of SN 22.48.
The quoted passage from AN 9.61 can be interpreted in both these ways. The commentary suggests that after the practitioner comes out of the super trance-like state then he stays with Nibbana-element with residue. But the latter interpretation suggests that beyond the 8 jhanas, there is no super trance-like state. Rather, after experiencing Nibbana, it's directly Nibbana-element with residue in any state with mental activity present.
In short, does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha mean cessation of ALL perception and feeling, or cessation of the clinging-aggregates of perception and feeling?
Question: does nirodha samapatti refer to a super trance like state beyond 8th jhana OR does it refer to the state of arahantship (nibbana-element without residue i.e. without the clinging aggregates of perception and feeling)?

I’m voting to close this question because This question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice, within the scope defined in the help center. If saññā-vedayita-nirodha referred to Nibbana-element then it would be called the Nibbana Element

In my current understanding, Ven. Khemaka was describing nirodha in the Khemaka Sutta: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. and then later uses two excellent teachings - one where he uses the scent of a flower and the other with the scent of a cloth - to describe how wasn't fully released. This coincides with your Nibbana-element with residue comment. It also coincides with my own personal understanding.

If you read about the last day of the buddha, before parinibbana he enters into & emerges from sannavedananirodha. That would be a nirodha samapati but signless/emptiness/undirected release are also nirodha based releases. All phala samapatti are also nirodha based, difference is only in how they are approached , apprehended and what defilemwnt has been removed.

@YesheTenley I didn't originally put Theravada there, but I did put Pali Canon. Now I have removed Theravada.

Ok, if you wish non-Theravada answers, but I am not sure you so wish as the Mayahana posit the attainment(s) of an Arahant and the attainment(s) of Arya beings as different from eachother and from the attainments of a Buddha. While I believe this is consistent with the pali canon, it would be hard to explain as Pali canon has most of the points in embryonic form

Does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha refer to a super trance-like state beyond the 8th jhana in which the practitioner becomes completely unconscious without any mental activity (like what the commentary above suggests) with cessation of ALL perception and feeling?

Yes.

Or does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha refer to Nibbana-element with residue aka Unbinding-property with fuel remaining of Iti 44 (please see Ven. Thanissaro's footnotes), where the arahant is fully conscious with mental activity, but has cessation of only the clinging (or tainted) perception and feeling? This is related to the clinging aggregates of SN 22.48.

No. the "Cessation of only the clinging (or tainted) perception and feeling" has already happened at the enlightenment moment of Arahanta. There has no ceased Kilesa left to cease anymore, after Magga arose.
And in basic Abhidhamma, 4 nama-aggregates always arises together. No sanna means no vedana, no sankhara, and no vinnana too.

But the latter interpretation suggests that beyond the 8 jhanas, there is no super trance-like state. Rather, after experiencing Nibbana, it's directly Nibbana-element with residue in any state with mental activity present.

In basic Abhidhamma, 19 nama arising (CittUppada) can know Nibbana, 4 MaggaCitta 4 PhalaCitta 4 NanasampayuttaMahaKusalaCitta 4 NanaSampayuttaMahaKiriyaCitta 2 AbhinnaCitta
1 ManoDvaravajjana.
So, the "directly Nibbana-element with residue in any state with mental activity present" is included into those 19  nama arising already. It is not NirodhaSamapatti.

Does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha refer to a super trance-like state beyond the 8th jhana in which the practitioner becomes completely unconscious without any mental activity (like what the commentary above suggests) with cessation of ALL perception and feeling?

I think the question can be framed like they did in the sutta.

Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"
"Yes, Ananda, he could..."
"But how, lord, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such
that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth...
nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would
still be percipient?"
"There is the case, Ananda, where the monk would be percipient in this
way: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all
fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of
craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' It's in this way that a
monk could have an attainment of concentration such that he would
neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with
regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the
infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of
consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of
neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next
world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be
percipient." - AN 10.6

I think this is analogical because cessation of perception & feeling is a very strictly defined term. Feeling is defined as the 6 classes of feeling; primarily as mind-base contact and classed as to associated with contact based on the 5 faculties or not.
Ananda tries to cover all states of feeling & perception starting with what is derived from earth, heat, wind and water such as plants or our own body with it's organs implicated in contact, this are all bodily and sensory feelings pertaining to the five faculties & the memory or imagination based on forms cognizable via the five faculties which are unimpaired for an Arahant;
then he talks about the arupajhana, of which there isn't much varition as these are trance like states or perception or neither perception nor non-perception;
Finally he says 'neither this world nor the next', which in the discipline of the noble one's would mean neither this mind & body nor the next because in the discipline of noble one's that in the world which conceives & perceives the world is called a world (mind, eye, tongue, nose, ear, body).
I think this means neither something pertaining to this life or some vision of the next life.
Imo, essentially like Ruben, Ananda seems to be asking about whether there is some super trance-like state beyond the 8th jhana in which the practitioner becomes completely unconscious without any mental activity with cessation of ALL perception and feeling.
Sariputta puts it like this;

“Once, friend Ānanda, when I was staying right here near Sāvatthī in the Grove of the Blind, I reached concentration in such a way that I
was neither percipient of earth with regard to earth…nor of the next
world with regard to the next world, and yet I was still percipient.”

“But what, friend Sāriputta, were you percipient of at that time?”
“‘The cessation of becoming—unbinding—the cessation of
becoming—unbinding’: One perception arose in me, friend Ānanda, as
another perception ceased. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one
flame arises as another flame ceases, even so, ‘The cessation of
becoming—unbinding—the cessation of becoming—unbinding’: One
perception arose in me as another one ceased. I was percipient at that
time of ‘The cessation of becoming—unbinding.’

I this is is a bad translation tho, i think the end should be 'The cessation of existence is Nibbana'

Bhavanirodho nibbānaṁ bhavanirodho nibbānan’ti kho me, āvuso, aññāva saññā uppajjati aññāva saññā nirujjhati.

There is a controversy here as to translating bhavanirodho. Some pin it becoming but they also pin the same bhava in saupādisesā bhavanettisaṅkhayā (occurs in iti 38 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html) as cessation of modes of existence. I am personally inclined to think it's existence.

There is also a mention of super trance-like state beyond the 8th jhana here;

"He is absorbed dependent neither on earth, liquid, fire, wind, the sphere of the infinitude of space, the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, this world, the next world, nor on whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect — and yet he is absorbed. And to this excellent thoroughbred of a man, absorbed in this way, the gods, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:
'Homage to you, O thoroughbred man. Homage to you, O superlative man —
you of whom we don't know even what it is     dependent on which  you're
absorbed.'https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.010.than.html

I think therefore one can say that there is a state where one is perceptient of unbinding and it is a suspension physical & mental activity and one is said to be percipient thus ‘The cessation of existence is extinguishment.’ One's life force is not exhausted and faculties are exceptionally clear, obviously as one is seeing with wisdom the truth of cessation as it actually is at that time and will thus abide percipient of unalloyed pleasure for a time determined by prior development and for up to 7 days.
This is said similarly to how one would say in regards to the attainment of the formless dimension of the perception nothingness at that time i was percipient 'There is nothing'.

"There are three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release: lack of attention to all themes, attention to the theme-less property, and a prior act of will. These are the three conditions for the persistence of the theme-less awareness-release."

"And what is the nothingness awareness-release? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] 'There is nothing,' enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is called the nothingness awareness-release.
"And what is the emptiness awareness-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.'[5] This is called the emptiness awareness-release.
"And what is the theme-less awareness-release? There is the case where a monk, through not attending to all themes, enters & remains in the theme-less concentration of awareness.[6] This is called the theme-less awareness-release.
"This is the way of explaining by which these qualities are different
in meaning & different in name.
"And what is the way of explaining whereby these qualities are one in
meaning and different only in name?
"Passion, friend, is a making of limits. Aversion is a making of
limits. Delusion is a making of limits. In a monk whose fermentations
are ended, these have been abandoned, their root destroyed, made like
a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not
destined for future arising. Now, to the extent that there is
immeasurable awareness-release, the unprovoked awareness-release is
declared the foremost. And this unprovoked awareness-release is empty
of passion, empty of aversion, empty of delusion.
"Passion is a something. Aversion is a something. Delusion is a
something. In a monk whose fermentations are ended, these have been
abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived
of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
Now, to the extent that there is nothingness awareness-release, the
unprovoked awareness-release is declared the foremost. And this
unprovoked awareness-release is empty of passion, empty of aversion,
empty of delusion.
"Passion is a making of themes. Aversion is a making of themes.
Delusion is a making of themes. In a monk whose fermentations are
ended, these have been abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a
palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined
for future arising. Now, to the extent that there is theme-less
awareness-release, the unprovoked awareness-release is declared the
foremost. And this unprovoked awareness-release is empty of passion,
empty of aversion, empty of delusion.
"This, friend, is the way of explaining whereby these qualities are
one in meaning and different only in name.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html

I think this should answer your question because if you think that there is a super trance like state then it's certainly sannavedananirodha which is nibbana because that seeing with wisdom destroys taints. I mean the initial attainment of the Buddha, he sat for 7 days, it wasn't jhana rupa or arupa jhana, ppl later called it lokuttarajhana.

Hi, I am either confused as to what Ruben’s question is or confused as to your answer, because this does not appear to me to answer the question… do you see my edit to the OP and agree the paraphrase is in accordance with your understanding of the question?

I added this answer to complement the referenced comments in the link from op. I already explained to my best ability what i thinl the theravada take on this is and don't want repeat everything again to the same questineer.

Ok, now with Ruben’s edit of my paraphrase I think your answer is affirming that it is to be understood as the state of an Arahant and not a super trance like state??

It's a super trance state so to speak, it lasts for a predetermined amount of time

Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.

It is the same with phala attainments, the difference is in what defilements are removed. They are all associated with samadhi based on the nibbananirodhadhatu and it is a cessation of perception & feeling

There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.080.wlsh.html

On the treshold of nibbana means, as i see it that it is 'without limits'; greed /anger/delusion s a making of limits. It limits and constricts. With cessation of perception & feeling there are no limits, no limit making, signs are limiting and seeing sighns is seeing something limited to a particular, limited in that sense. The discernment of the cessation is the 3rd truth and a fruition of the path. Towards the end of mn43 there is an explanation of the limits as well.

In short, does nirodha samapatti aka saññā-vedayita-nirodha mean cessation of ALL perception and feeling, or only clinging to perception and feeling?
Perhaps it's helpful to remember that cessation of dukkha is the goal.
A "trace-like state" implies to me a disconnection from reality, a non-responsiveness.
I wonder if instead, or more specifically, it's a "cessation of perception and feeling of dukkha".
Perception -- sañña -- is described as "grasping distinguishing features". So perhaps (unlike a trance) there remains awareness of distinguishing features -- ability to distinguish things -- but a pacification of the type of grasping and fabrication that gives rise to dukkha.

So you believe it refers to the state of an Arahant?

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
The Buddha spoke to many individuals. Did the Buddha ever tell an individual who did not believe in rebirth, that they must in order to be liberated?
I have yet to read the entire Pali canon, but I've read a lot of it. It is a source I trust is fairly accurate. I'm still looking for an anecdote from the Buddha's life where he tells a non-believer to start believing in rebirth. Confining answers to the suttas, I'd appreciate pointers to any specific statements he made.

It must be where he talks to a non-believer or instructs others to persuade non-believers?

Yes, thanks, speaking to an individual. I like your addition of "instructing others to persuade non-believers" too. Thanks.

It's difficult for me to entertain the notion of the Buddha imposing teachings onto individuals. Perhaps my understanding of your question is misplaced?

@NeuroMax: I'm not sure what you're asking me.

In SN 15.5, SN 15.6, an individual monk and in SN 15.8, an individual brahmin lay person, spoke to the Buddha, and asked a question about the length of an eon. The Buddha answered it and then reflected on how samsara (translated by Ven. Sujato as "transmigration") has been going on for a very long time, with an unknown beginning, and tells the individual to use this to inspire himself towards liberation.
The stock phrase in SN 15 translated by Ven. Sujato is:

Transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of
sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and
fettered by craving. For such a long time you have undergone
suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries. This is quite
enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed
regarding all conditions.”

The stock phrase in SN 15 translated by Ven. Thanissaro is:

"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning
point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered
by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus
experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

You don't have to believe in rebirth to be liberated, but rebirth is used above as skillful means to inspire one towards liberation.
Of course, we have seen many arguments re-interpreting verses that sound like rebirth, typically explaining renewed existences as different states of mind or different mind-moments, plus explaining the "break-up of the body" as the break-up of the five aggregates (from one mind-moment to the next). Also one body to another body can be reinterpreted as one set of five aggregates to another (from one mind-moment to another) for SN 44.9.
Also, the rebirth as animal or ghost or human or deva as different states of mind. Another one is seven remaining rebirths for a stream enterer can be re-interpreted as seven remaining fetters.
For SN 15, renewed existences through the eons can be explained as rebirth of the self or rebirth of individuality, rather than the rebirth of a specific individual person or entity.
These types of reinterpretation could make sense. After all, Pali terms related to "birth" and "rebirth" can be used as metaphors or redefined terms, just like how the terms "dhamma" and "sankhara" have been used in different contexts to mean different things.
This is made difficult by certain suttas in SN 15, which refer to rebirth of a specific individual person. I will quote them below. However, all these suttas are addressed to monks, not an individual.

“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. …
One person (ekapuggala) roaming and transmigrating for
an eon would amass a heap
of bones the size of this Mount Vepulla, if they were gathered
together and not lost.
SN 15.10

“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. … It’s not easy to
find a sentient being (satta) who in all this long time
has not previously
been your mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter.
SN 15.14 to SN 15.19

These suttas are followed by the same stock phrase for SN 15, which tells the listener(s) to use the rebirth of many beings across the eons to inspire oneself towards liberation.

MN 117 states that it is wrong view to believe that there's no next world.
But to be fair, this applies to those clinging to self view, because thinking the self is annihilated and not reborn, is the wrong view of annihilationism, and drives the unenlightened towards hedonism.
So, this appears to fully answer your question. However, it's addressed to monks, not an individual.

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered,
nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad
actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father,
no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who,
faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is
wrong view.
MN 117

“You don't have to believe in rebirth to be liberated…“ can one be liberated while holding wrong views? Is knowledge of rebirth attested as a consequence of liberation?

@YesheTenley The OP asked for a sutta which stated that you must believe in rebirth, otherwise you cannot be liberated. SN 15 suttas provide rebirth as a source of inspiration for striving towards liberation. But as we have seen from the SN 22.85 and MN 38, that's not absolutely true. So, it's used as skillful means.

I have asked my own question… about liberation and right views… thanks :)

FWIW, Yamaka sutta and MN 38 … the points uphold and strengthen conventional right views… they do not undermine them. Yamaka sutta for instance affirms the conventional truth of rebirth.

IOW, Yamaka Sutta’s main point properly understood makes it necessarily so that conventional rebirth is true.

@YesheTenley You may like the Burden Sutta which defines the conventional person as the bearer of the burden. - “And what, bhikkhus, is the carrier of the burden? It should be said: the person, this venerable one of such a name and clan. This is called the carrier of the burden. "

That is a good sutta but what is the relevance here?

@Yeshe Tenley. I'm not sure if your brief line about asking your own question is a reference to here or elsewhere, but I find a lot of good information on the subject of right view vs. wrong view in Paul Fuller's book, "The Notion of Diṭṭhi in Theravada Buddhism".

@Linda Blanchard thanks for the recommendation!

@ruben20020. Excellent answers. I can certainly see these suttas as saying that a good look at saṃsāra (the word translated as transmigration) would lead one to become disillusioned with the conditions that tie us to it. But it's not saying one has to believe in rebirth to become so disillusioned, is it.

@LindaBlanchard I've updated the answer with MN 117. It says "no next world" is wrong view.

This is as close as it gets afaik;

A2. "Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who
thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there
actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next
world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next
world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is
his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he
says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to
those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the
next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,'
that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion
in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others.
Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad
habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong
speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true
Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many
evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong
view.
A3. "With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If
there is no next world, then — with the breakup of the body, after
death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is
the next world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the
body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad
destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of the next
world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable
contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still criticized
in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong
view: [2] one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence.' If there
really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad
throw twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here-&-now, and
in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear
in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.
Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by
him, covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the
skillful. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html

It's similar to

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

Yes, I recall that sutta, but (1) it's not speaking to an individual and (2) as Thanissaro Bhikkhu points out on his introduction on the Access To Insight page for the sutta, this portion breaks the logic of the sutta. It seems to me, most likely, a corruption added later by some partisan editor, since it is the only place in the suttas the Buddha gets that dogmatic. It's the reason I'm looking for a case of him telling an individual they must believe it. Surely there were plenty of opportunities for him to do so.

Linda Blanchard, this excerpt is logical per se because it complies with everything else in the canon: If you don't think that there is rebirth according to kamma, it's unlikely that you will put up as much effort and devotion to abandon unwholesome kamma and develop wholesome kamma as someone who does believe in it. Thus, you're unlikely to attain liberation as well. You can see throughout the canon that this standard formulation of Right View (which includes rebirth according to kamma) is endorsed by the Buddha because its a major prerequisite for the path that he laid out.

I'm not a Buddhist, but is this passage talking about reincarnation or afterlives? It sounds more like it's condemning people who say that existence ceases after death than saying that belief in reincarnation is required. For example, it sounds like a belief in the Christian afterlives of Heaven and Hell would be perfectly compatible with these verses.

Yes it would be compatible.

@Danilo. The first sutta is known as the "Safe Bet" in that, like the (less famous parts of the) Kalama Sutta, it is pointing out that if there is no life after death, and no cosmic reward/punishment system, following a moral path gives rewards.  Saying "but you have to believe this or else" negates the argument. Also, suggesting that those who do not believe in rebirth are less likely to behave in wholesome ways is simply a view from inexperience with what it's like to be agnostic or of a scientific bent. It's a prejudice based on ignorance.

Further: MN 117 can equally be read in a way consistent with the rest of the Pali canon as pointing out that wrong view is about quarrels & disputes. The phrasing of that bit of MN 117 represents the views of non-followers of the Buddha  (e.g. "given, offered, sacrificed" are particular references to Vedic practices, "this world, next world" to views about ancestor worship that preceded rebirth beliefs). He is saying that telling others who are following systems that encourage morality, that they are wrong is wrong. Paul Fuller's book on Ditthi is a great read on the subject.

Linda Blanchard, It doesn't negate. He is simply taking the opportunity to give his own share on the matter to serve as an additional factor to propel one's devotion to the path. This is nothing that you won't see in the other suttas, there is plenty of examples in the canon where he recollects his past lives or sees and speaks with the devas. As for those who doesn't adhere to Right View (which includes rebirth) be less likely to progress in the path: this is something that you can attest by yourself merely by logical inference if you set your conceit aside.

As for "wrong view is about quarrels & disputes" as you suggest, this is a quote from AN 10:93: "(The Blessed One said:) 'Well done, householder. Well done. That is how you should periodically & righteously refute those foolish men.'"

@Danillo.  Didn't the Buddha diss "logical inference" in the Kalama Sutta?

Linda Blanchard, he said so to people who couldn't make up their minds on what path they should follow. If that's your case, go for it.

The suttas (MN 117; MN 60) explicitly say belief in anything construed as 'rebirth' only sides with 'merit' rather than with liberation. MN 117 says:

And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
There is this world & the other world. There is mother & father. There
are spontaneously born beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
other after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one
developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without
effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right
view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the
path.

MN 60, which repeats the above non-transcendent right view, says:

If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and
sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, merit comes of
that, and an outcome of merit.
Uttarañcepi gaṅgāya tīraṁ gaccheyya dadanto dāpento, yajanto
yajāpento; atthi tatonidānaṁ puññaṁ, atthi puññassa āgamo.
In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is merit
and outcome of merit.’
Dānena damena saṁyamena saccavajjena atthi puññaṁ, atthi puññassa
āgamo’ti.
You can expect that they will reject bad conduct by way of body,
speech, and mind, and undertake and implement good conduct by way of
body, speech, and mind.
tesametaṁ pāṭikaṅkhaṁ—yamidaṁ kāyasucaritaṁ, vacīsucaritaṁ,
manosucaritaṁ—ime tayo kusale dhamme abhinivajjetvā yamidaṁ
kāyaduccaritaṁ, vacīduccaritaṁ, manoduccaritaṁ—ime tayo akusale dhamme
samādāya vattissanti.
A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way:
Tatra, gahapatayo, viññū puriso iti paṭisañcikkhati:
‘If there is effective action, when this individual’s body breaks up,
after death, they will be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.

Therefore, it appears impossible we can find a sutta where the Buddha says believing in 'rebirth' is required for liberation because the Buddha said rebirth belief is "polluted" ("asava"); leading to "acquisitions" ("upadhi") and "death" ("marana"). "Death" is the realm of Mara. The words "marana" and "Mara" have the same root. SN 12.66 says clearly the direct immediate condition for "death" ("marana") is "upadhi" ("acquisitions"). The Buddha said "rebirth" view results in "acquisitions" ("upadhi"). That is why the suttas say even going to heaven occurs "after death".
In fact there is one sutta (MN 79) where the Buddha explicitly says "enough" to a questioner who keeps asking about the destinations of various people. The sutta says this questioner was engaged in all manner of "animal talk (tiracchānakathaṁ)" and "can’t even see a mud-goblin". Then the Buddha instructs him on 'The Dhamma' of with this as condition, this arises; with the cessation of this, this ceases.
Then MN 79 ends with describing how liberation occurs, as follows:

Knowing and seeing like this, their mind is freed from the asava
(pollutions) of sensuality, becoming and ignorance.
Tassa evaṁ jānato evaṁ passato kāmāsavāpi cittaṁ vimuccati,
bhavāsavāpi cittaṁ vimuccati, avijjāsavāpi cittaṁ vimuccati.
When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
Vimuttasmiṁ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti.

Therefore, rebirth belief is not required for liberation. What is required from liberation is ending the asava (pollutions of defilements).

Dhammadatu, if you do find the sutta, please let us know here. I went looking for it searching appearances of "alaṃ" but didn't find it. Also, can you cite a specific line in MN 60 about siding with merit? I'm not finding it.

MN 60 refers to three types of good kamma, which is not supramundane. "You can expect that they will reject bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and undertake and implement good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind.
tesametaṁ pāṭikaṅkhaṁ—yamidaṁ kāyaduccaritaṁ, vacīduccaritaṁ, manoduccaritaṁ—ime tayo akusale dhamme abhinivajjetvā yamidaṁ kāyasucaritaṁ, vacīsucaritaṁ, manosucaritaṁ—ime tayo kusale dhamme samādāya vattissanti." https://suttacentral.net/mn60/en/sujato

Re MN 79: "But let be the past, Udāyin, let be the future. I shall teach you the Dhamma: When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases." Effectively saying, "Enough!" but "...let be the past, let be the future" is more poetic, I think.

Thanks for the clarifications. Re: MN 60, it does indeed describe those 3 kinds of kamma, but without making it clear it is not talking about the ultimate goal of practice. I think a sutta that's clearer about that is MN 78, which discusses the end of wholesome conduct as a desirable thing. I find it in clear support of the two kinds of right view as described in MN 117.

my answer is clear. it says the three good kamma lead to heaven.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is liberation possible for those practicing unskillful means?
Is it possible for a person to gain liberation while simultaneously practicing unskillful means?
Is it possible for a person to understand profound universal truths while simultaneously practicing unskillful means?
Are skillful means in accordance with profound universal truths?
Are profound universal truths in accordance with skillful means?
An example of a skillful means is acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth in cyclic existence.
An example of a profound universal truth is that the Buddha was not to be regarded as a real and genuine fact as was taught to Anurādha.
An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma.
An example of a profound universal falsify is to understand the Buddha as a real and genuine fact.
Another example of a profound universal falsity is to believe like Yamaka that, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.”
Various traditions divide the above conventions into a dichotomy. The labels that are used and the understanding of that dichotomy is different from tradition to tradition. In Theravada, I have seen the dichotomy variously described as right views of two types including, without vs with effluents, definitive vs interpretable, supramundane vs mundane, and in commentarial literature ultimate vs conventional. In Mahayana, the dichotomy is labeled in similar ways but also absolute/ultimate/universal vs conventional/relative/dependent.

An example of unskillful means is the denial of conventional rebirth and the fruits of karma.

Is liberation possible for those practicing unskillful means?

This sutta basically says that if a person rejects rebirth then he is going to a bad rebirth.

A1. "Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold
this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is no this world, no next world
[...]
if there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the
breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of
deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html

Whether they can still develop good qualities, i think of course and they will rehabilitate faster if they do.
As i understand the Dhamma beings are for the most part reborn in hell and just occasionally gain a favorable rebirth. By rehabilitation i meant undergoing immense suffering until they are broken by it as to their fixation in wrong views and they become born as more open minded, so i meant that beings are not only rehabilitated in this life but also in the future and their good development will to an extent mitigate bad consequences.

Do you think they can rehabilitate while still clinging to a denial of rebirth? This is great btw.

As i understand the Dhamma beings are for the most part reborn in hell and just occasionally gain a favorable rebirth. By rehabilitation i meant undergoing immense suffering until they are broken by it as to their fixation in wrong views and they become born as more open minded, so i meant that beings are not only rehabilitated in this life but also in the future and their good development will to an extent mitigate bad consequences.

What you call "conventional right view" is just skillful means to help one adopt a skillful or wholesome mindset. It's just a helpful tool. The following is an example.

“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth (upapatti), are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

What you call "profound right view" are universal truths. Whether anyone is there to know them or not, they remain true.

“Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All
conditions are impermanent.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are
suffering.’
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’”
AN 3.136

What about the fully enlightened ones? What views do they hold?
The answer is that they have let go of all views.

"A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them
as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of
that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from
contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in
ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by
laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless.
Those skilled (in judgment) (i.e. the Buddhas and their disciples who
have realized the goal). say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying
on it, one regards everything else as inferior.
Therefore a bhikkhu
should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual
observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine
himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the
views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does
not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is
certainly not one to take sides.
He does not [have] recourse to a view
at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for
becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there
does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines
assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized
he does not form the least notion.
That brahman (i.e. a perfected one)
who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the
world?
"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on
views."
Snp 4.5

I have asked your questions in a different way before. I asked: Why the view “I am the owner of my karma” not contradict anatta?
The best answer for this question, by Sankha Kulathantille, has answered it very well.

Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced
practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone
regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many
will end up being more confused than they already are. That's why there
are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a
conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is
important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate
reality.

That means views like "I am the owner of my karma" and rebirth are simply used as skillful means, as crutches to help one who hasn't overcome the fetter of self-view (sakkaya ditthi) and who hasn't understood anatta yet.

Hi Ruben, while this is interesting it is not really answering the questions is it? The questions are pretty straightforward I think…

I’ve edited the questions to use your conventions… does that make it easier to answer?

@YesheTenley I have updated the answer. I hope it's clear now.

Sorry, I still don’t know whether or not you think unskillful means can lead to liberation or whether skillful means are in accordance with profound truths or not… perhaps you think unskillful means can be skillful for some or that skillful means can be unskillful for some?

Is the denial of the conventional truth of rebirth ever a skillful means for some? Is such a denial ever in accordance with profound truth?

@YesheTenley I've added a second answer. I think that will be a more accurate answer to your question

TL;DR
Denying rebirth view while clinging to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism and brings the unenlightened to hedonism.
Denying rebirth view after discarding self view is the noble right view.
Rebirth view can be used as skillful means (upaya) to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation. Rebirth view is the middle way and is the right view with effluents/ taints.
Please also see this answer.
Long answer
It appears that the most accurate answer to your question is found in MN 117.
Denying rebirth, while holding self-view, appears to be wrong view. This is unskillful means because it directs the mind of the unenlightened towards hedonism and nihilism.
Rebirth appears to be part of the right view with effluents/ taints. That makes sense because rebirth is only skillful means according to AN 5.57. It's not absolute truth. It's just a tool to inspire one towards liberation.
The noble right view appears to be concerned with the ultimate truth. When self-view is discarded, rebirth view will be discarded too.
I think this is excellent because it finally tells us what rebirth really is in Buddhism. It's not falsehood. It's not truth. It's just a helpful tool. A middle way between falsehood and truth. The rebirth puzzle is solved.

"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the
forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as
right view. This is one's right view.
And what is wrong view? 'There
is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no
fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no
next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no
contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly,
proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized
it for themselves.' This is wrong view.
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts:
There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without
effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one
developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without
effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right
view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the
path.
MN 117

This is much better and I am getting an idea of your answer! Thank you. I have a few uncertainties with your answer though… do you regard right action also as skillfull means? And the fruits of right action are also skillful means? In that same sutta it describes refraining from killing as right action with effluents. So is “refraining from killing” like rebirth as you described? Not true, not false, just a skillful means? And karma? Is that also: “not true, not falsehood, etc”

And I still don’t know whether you think it possible to achieve liberation while holding wrong views or practicing unskillful means… can someone achieve liberation while denying rebirth or denying right action eg., killing living beings?

Are skillful means or "right view with effluents" in accordance with profound truths or "right view without effluents? Vice versa? Are skillful means for some unskillful for others?

the buddha defines right view with effluents as right view but ok sure,  its discarded by right view without effluents,  cos that is a logical and coherent thought that obviously validly follows after the others

I'd note that the problem with right action with taints is the reason for the behavior: it's doing things for reasons involving the self -- to get a good rebirth  (that's the "siding with merit" part). Also note that in the descriptions, the higher "right anything" is listed as being a factor of the path, whereas the tainted "right anything" is not.

@LindaBlanchard Reading the whole sutta, it looks to me that the right anything with effluents is for lay followers e.g. sexual misconduct, right livelihood in trades. The noble right anything is for monks and noble disciples. Hence, a belief in kamma and rebirth affecting all beings may generate the path and cause a shift from the version with effluents, to the noble version.

@ruben2020 I agree.

@YesheTenley Denying rebirth view while holding on to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism. Denying rebirth view after discarding self view is right view. Rebirth view can be used as skillful means to remove misconduct and generate the path to liberation.

No, I don’t think that is right. Refraining from killing living beings and not stealing and not lying is good in the beginning, the middle, and the end.

The Dharma is good in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end. You are still seeing discord between the profound and the conventional.

@YesheTenley There's no discord. It's just like in school, we teach Newtonian law of gravity to high school students, then later physics postgraduates learn Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Similarly, accepting rebirth view is like Newtonian gravity, while not-self is like Einsteinian Relativity. It's just more accurate.

“And what is the right action with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? Abstaining from killing, from taking what is not given, & from illicit sex.“ -> this should be given up? No longer practiced? After achieving right action without effluents the killing of living beings is fine?

@YesheTenley The precept on sexual misconduct is for lay persons. It's right action with effluents. For monks, they have to follow the noble right action which requires celibacy as part of monasticism.

And refraining from killing and refraining from lying? Also only for lay people??

“Denying rebirth view after discarding self view is right view“ this is wrong. Affirming rebirth while not acknowledging it as a real and genuine fact was the example of the Buddha.

Affirming existence of people while not acknowledging them as real and genuine facts was the example of the Buddha.

@YesheTenley The idea of rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness

People exist, people wander from life to life. The Buddha affirmed this many many times and he never refuted or denied it. The teaching of anatta does not deny this. The Noble right view does not deny this. To believe otherwise is to see discord between the profound and the conventional.

@YesheTenley If by "people", you mean a chain of dependent processes, then that's right.

Yes, there is the rebirth of people and this is suffering. There is wandering on and the Buddha described his own past lives many times. This was never denied or overturned by Noble right view. It cannot be overturned as it is the truth. Neither the Buddha nor his past lives are to be seen as real and genuine facts. There is no contradiction.

events are not all disembodied arisings and stoppings. the 5 heaps are the parts of a person,  as the buddha explained,  not merely 5 more disembodied events to be added to a mass collection of planetary events.  the lack of an unchanging,  independent partless self is a fact about yourself and ur parts.  it does not mean or imply the lack of the person who realizes notself.  that is a conceptual object you are conjuring artificially which u should have caught onto by now.  perfect ur concentration find the self which required great skill and then u are set to perform the full investigation

no,  liberation and right view occur simultaneously the way access concentration/shamata occurs along with the cessation of desire for sense objects ie. food and sex
worth noting that incomplete right view is different than wrong view.  wrong view is complete detachment from reality and instead operating within an illusion of knowledge  that it is mistaken as reality eg. physicalists who deny rebirth thru holding the nonempirical metaphysics of a physically mechanistic universe

From this I understand you to be saying that skillful means of acknowledging the conventional truth of rebirth is in accordance with profound truths and that unskillful means of denying conventional rebirth is not in accordance, right?

@Yeshe Tenley mere acknowledgement is trivial and anything on that level will change like the wind.  i was talking more about actual conventional reality and the realization of it which brings about nirvana not mere acknowledgement which has nothing to do with nirvana by definition.  maybe im just getting distracted by the unfamiliar words

Yeah, acknowledging is just the antonym of denying. Despite the strange words I think I understand you :)

There are several times in the Sutta where Sariputta or Ananda would say wrong things and be corrected.
Iirc,
Once when Ananda said that this Dhamma is clear as clear can be and Buddha told him not to say that because the Dhamma that is taught is difficult to see as is dependent origination.
Another occasion was when Sariputta said that the Buddha Gotama was foremost of all and Buddha told him not to say that because he doesn't know the past Buddhas.
I recall another instance where he said something akin to a dispute about vinaya being a trifling matter whereas if monks were to be in a disagreement about path & fruition it would be detrimental to many beings.
Buddha often talked about pernicious views as those that lead to hell and said that the foremost wrong view is that 'maybe it is true and maybe it is otherwise' one does not come to a definite conclusion 'only this is true & everything else is false', his statement 'this is my conviction' safeguards the truth either way.
Being fixated in wrong view like annihilation of an existent being or an eternal persistence of a personal element are among the worst kind of wrong views it seems

Ananda wasn't an arahant right, until later. Might you happen to be able to add a reference for the second-last paragraph, about the "foremost wrong view"?

I couldn't find it but i am sure it exists, the point was that the foremost wrong view was the better wrong view to hold. Canki Sutta also supports this explaining how one safeguards the truth.

Id ask around for a reference but i don't use other boards

@Letsbuddhism: I wonder if you are thinking of MN 74 "To Longnails"?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.074.than.html

no, i looked long and hard but couldn't find it. I think i probably got it confused with inference of the canki sutta which pretty much the same thing if one thinks about it. There is another discourse comparing holding the body to be a self to be better than taking mind to be a self because the former lasts for a short time. I think maybe i mixed the two discourses and inferred that not being fixated is the foremost.


text:
What is a person (puggala)?
What is a person (puggala) in Buddhism?
What is the difference between a person (puggala) and other terms like self (atta) and sentient being (satta)?
Is a person (puggala) reborn into future lives?
How do we reconcile the concept of person (puggala) with "sabbe dhamma anatta" (all phenomena is not self)?
There was an ancient Buddhist philosophical school called Pudgalavada which posited the existence of a person (puggala) based on SN 22.22, who has continued existence, experiences the result of his kamma, gets reborn and finally becomes liberated etc. Other Buddhist schools apparently criticized this view for being too close to self or atman / atta.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the carrier of the burden? It should be said:
the person (puggala), this venerable one of such a name and clan. This is called
the carrier of the burden.
SN 22.22

One person (ekapuggala) roaming and transmigrating for
an eon would amass a heap of bones the size
of this Mount Vepulla, if they were gathered together and not lost.
SN 15.10

the dhamma was never taught for the above questions to arise. this is the problem of publishing sutta to puthujjana. they makes such bad kamma and they don't even know they do. they cannot practise the supramundane and they befuddle the supramundane with the mundane. MN 117 says there are two types of dhamma - mundane & supramundane. the supramundane is not for puthujjana; who, like using a master carpenters tools, just end up cutting their hands.

What is a person (puggala) in Buddhism?

It's just a concept, e.g. like a "being".

What is the difference between a person (puggala) and other terms like self (atta) and sentient being (satta)?

There is no difference - they are all concepts with no real reference point to reality.
Words such as a person, a being etc. is used for conventional sake only. If you go look for these things you won't find them anywhere.

There was an ancient Buddhist philosophical school called Pudgalavada which posited the existence of a person (puggala) based on SN 22.22, who has continued existence, experiences the result of his kamma, gets reborn and finally becomes liberated etc. Other Buddhist schools apparently criticized this view for being too close to self or atman / atta.

This sounds very much like "Wrong-view" (Miccā Diṭṭhi) and is basically a misunderstanding of how reality works (and of the Buddha's Teaching).
The view about "... Pudgalavada which posited the existence of a person (puggala), who has continued existence ..." might fall under the 2nd of the 62 Wrong Views, namely the Eternalist view.

persons are the referents of names,  not simply conventions. they appear directly and validly to the purified perfected minds of nonbuddhists.  to deny them is simple nihilism.  what the buddha taught is investigation upon the validly appearing self using not-self.  this is for the sake of revealing the true nature of persons and placing the directly into nirvana upon successful completion of the investigation.  arriving at nothing when looking for a person only occurs when u fail to notice urself when saying urself doesnt exist

the person is the thing that when u say 'i dont exist' observes that referent object freshly
the self is the innate misapprehension we have always had when the person appears.
for instance the power that endured you into this next moment is such a grasping of a self to the person
like everything else the person is hard to notice without much concentration and extremely obvious with pretty good concentration

Each mind can know one in 3 kinds of objects...

Arising&Vanishing Realities (trillion moments per second;sankhata)
Imagination (pannatti)
Nibbana Reality (asankhata)

(All of them have names[nāma] which is a kind of pannatti)
Everybody, included the noble one, must know Sankhata and Pannatti switching rapidly to live their life.
The Arising&Vanishing Realities means only 89 minds 52 mind factor 28 forms.
One know every realities by 6 doors then imagine of them as the only one by Ghanasaññā(1)(2) (Thinking of the whole as one; Perception that it is one and the same).

āramaṇaghana -- conceiving the conglomeration of sensations (of sight, of sound, of smell, of taste, of touch) as a palpable entity
santatighana -- consciousness of a series of sensations which seemingly merge into a continuum
kiccaghana -- concept of a soul, entity or being engendered by by taking the total physical and mental experiences as a unified whole
samūhaghana -- conceiving the body-organs and the body as a solid-entity when the body-octad including the four great essentials (mahābhūta consisting of: pathavī, āpo, tejo, vāyo ) are always in a flux of generation, stasis, and dissolution.

For the example, we know uncountable colors, sounds, smells, hardness, softness which arising&vanishing rapidly now, everybody imagine "a person is typing, a person is reading, a computer are touched by a person", but we has not enough concentration to see the truth whether it's only realities, 6 minds doing duties on 6 objects at 6 doors, arising and vanishing rapidly trillion times per second.
And the only way to see the truth is listen to the Buddha.
The Buddha is the only one who can understand Abhidhamma by seeing realities on every lives himself and has enough abilities to tell people to enlighten follow him.
He see the trillion moments per second of Nama and Rupa by himself and he know how can see like that on every past and future lives as Nama and Rupa by his 3 and 8 Vijja, especially VipassanaNanaVijja, at his enlightened night.
He can understand why the reincarnation still going on because of analyzing Nama and Rupa by CutupapataNana as dependent origination (Paticcasamuppada).
The world never has one like him before for long long time.

Don't think only listening is enough. The reader maybe understand while reading, but most of them don't know how to meditate and analysis everything as Nama and Rupa in the dependent origination cycling in the real entire life. That's why we need to meditate both concentration meditation and insight meditation with the tipitaka memorizer like Pa-Auk tawya.
The left analysis means uncountable left unwholesome mind moments.

i think it is wrong to say 'Arising&Vanishing Realities, trillion moments per second;sankhata' because 'sankhata' is discerned to be changing as it persists. In example a pleasant feeling doesn't arise & cease as one thing, it becomes unpleasant when it changes. Manocittavinna is also said to arise as one thing & cease as another, by day & by night, like a monkey in the forest seeking fruit grabbing one branch before letting go of another.

an arising & vanishing of the sankhata is only discerned by the dhamma-eye that sees the 4 noble truths in connection with the pathfruition attainments.

Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the conditioned. What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the conditioned.

Therefore normally people speak of the alteration while it persists when they are speaking of things like cessation of a night, or cessation of a fire. These terms are way to think about the perceived changes in the persistent.

What you are talking about still be the imagined conceptual in Abhidhamma.That's why what you are talking about always appear as an example in Sutta, not main idea. The sutta is taught to people who collected their Parami, abilities, for many past lives. People who the Buddha taught each Sutta has an abilities to understand Nama & Rupa arising&vanishing as realities. It's like when an unskillful newbie tests the science's professional level test, so he tests it so perfunctory, then he is going get many mistake for the test. The left analysis means uncountable left unwholesome mind moments.

as i understand it you think it is better to simplify it for popularization? I couldn't make out the meaning of this part; 'That's why what you are talking about always appear as an example in Sutta, not main idea.'. I guess you are referring to the analogies? I think people generally are very confused by the idea of 'a moment' because it is a concept of ideation and they expect consciousness to have a beginning & end, it confuses a lot imo.

I think it is fine if you want to think that but i wanted to mention it anyway because otherwise there is no making sense of lines like these; '“Contact, reverends, is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. The cessation of contact is the middle.'

I also think the expression with mind moments is fine as long as people are taught the correct expression defining manocittavinnana alongside, as arsing as one and ceasing as another and etc, so that they have a chance to conceptualize these elements correctly

I think i maybe understood the confusing part as meaning that basically words&ideas are not the thing which is named or thought about and the sutta are merely a system of verbal expression.

Is a person (puggala) reborn into future lives?

A person can not be pinned down as a truth or reality even in this life, let alone a future life.
However if you are talking in terms of the doctrine of self, then you can talk about real things being grasped with wrong view to be personal or a person, a self or a being.
If you are then talking about a person, a self or a being, then you can talk about it in various contexts.
You can talk about a being's birth being dependent on another being's actions as if those were his own actions in a past life.
Understanding the doctrine of self as wrong view completes general understanding, does this make sense?
It is a delusion but it is the delusion that we are trying to unwind and we must understand & navigate it as it is but we don't have to be slave to it because we know it is a false doctrine.