text:
bhava (kammabhava, upapattibhava) and jati
How is the connection between bhava (as kamma-bhava and upapatti-bhava) and jāti as links in the twelve link formula of dependant arising  to be understood?

It is actually pretty simple. Once you have identified "yourself" and equated it with an organism, you must have been born. Makes sense? If you don't think you are this organism, moreover, you don't think there is any "you" at all, the notion of birth no longer applies.

According to Visuddhimagga XVII.270, jāti arises due to kamma condition and decisive support condition.
Here is a more detailed explanation taken from Nyanatiloka's "Buddhist Dictionary" (part of the definition of paṭiccasamuppāda):

"Through the process of becoming is conditioned rebirth" (Bhava-paccayā jāti), i.e. through the wholesome and unwholesome kamma-process (kamma-bhava) is conditioned the rebirth-process (upapatti-bhava). The 2nd and 10th propositions, as already pointed out, practically teach one and the same thing, namely, that kamma is the cause of rebirth; in other words, that the kammical volition (cetanā) is the seed out of which springs the new life, just as from the mango-seed is generated the new mango-tree.
Hence, the 5 kammical causes (ignorance, etc.) of the past birth are the condition for the kamma-results of the present birth; and the 5 kammical causes of the present birth are the condition for the 5 kamma-results of the next birth (s. diagram). As it is said in Vis.M. XVII: "Five causes were there in the past, Five fruits we find in present life; Five causes do we now produce, Five fruits we reap in future life."
Now, just as in this process of continually changing mental and bodily phenomena, nothing can be found that would pass from one moment to the next moment, so also there is no enduring entity, ego, or personality, within this process of existence that would transmigrate from one life to the next (s. nāma-rūpa, anattā, paṭisandhi, khandha). "No being and no living soul passed from the former life to this life, and yet this present embryo could not have entered into existence without the preceding causes" (Vis.M. XVII). "Many things may serve to illustrate this fact, as for example the echo, the light of a lamp, the impression of a seal, or the image produced by a mirror" (ib.).
"Whosoever is in the dark with regard to the conditionally arisen things, and does not understand that kamma originates from ignorance, etc., he thinks that it must be his ego that knows or does not know, acts and causes to act, and that arises at rebirth. Or he thinks that the atoms, or a creator, with the help of this embryonic process, must have formed this body, or that it is the ego endowed with faculties that has impressions, feels, desires, clings, continues and enters again into existence in a new birth. Or he thinks that all beings have been born through fate, or fortuitously" (Vis.M. XVII).
Now, on hearing that Buddhism teaches that everything whatever in the world is determined by conditions some might come to the conclusion that Buddhism teaches some sort of fatalism, and that man has no free will, or that will is not free.
The problem 'whether man has a free will' does not exist for, the Buddhist, since he knows that, apart from these everchanging mental and physical phenomena, no such entity as 'man' can be found, and that 'man' is merely a name not relating to any reality. And the question, 'whether will is free', must be rejected for the reason that 'will', or volition, is a mental phenomenon flashing forth only for a moment, and that as such it had not any existence at the preceding moment. For of a thing which is not, or is not yet, one cannot, properly speaking, ask whether it is free or unfree. The only admissible question would be whether the arising of 'will' is independent of conditions, or whether it is conditioned. But the same question would equally apply also to all the other mental phenomena, as well as to all physical phenomena, in other words: to everything and every occurrence whatever. And the answer would be: whether will arises, or whether feeling arises, or whether any other mental or any physical phenomenon arises, the arising of anything whatsoever is dependent on conditions, and without conditions nothing ever can arise or enter into existence.
According to Buddhism, everything mental or physical happens in accordance with laws and conditions; and if it were otherwise, chaos and blind chance would reign. But such a thing is impossible and contradicts all laws of thinking. Cf. Fund. III (end).

My understanding is:

kamma-bhava - moment to moment turning of Dependent Origination (DO) within one lifetime
upapatti-bhava - the turning of DO on a multi life time perspective

The latter is what relates to jāti. Past Fabrication due to Ignorance from the previous life creates a new body with sense faculties with associated consciousness to experience the world leading to jāti.


text:
Supernatural beings and the 31 planes of existence
Did the Buddha have any personal experience with maras and devas and supernatural beings in general?
And, if I'm not mistaken, the 31 planes of existence is something he taught. So, how did he come to know of them?

According to the Suttas, the Buddha frequently interacted with Devā and Māra. In the Saṃyutta Nikāya, Chapter 1 is "Discourses with  Devatās", Chapter 2 is "Discourses with Young Devas" and Chapter 4 is "Discourses with Māra".
In general, the Devā and Māra would come and visit the Buddha and the monastics; the Devā to ask the Buddha questions, Māra to try and disrupt spiritual progress (especially when appearing to monks / nuns). On rare occasions, the Buddha would use his psychic power to visit the Deva realms. The implications from the Suttas is that the Buddha was able to view all the planes of existence, either by reviewing his past existences or using his psychic powers.
The "31 planes of existence" is a later Theravāda summary of the realms. Other traditions have different numbers of realms. Nowhere in the Suttas does it explicitly state 31 realms, though most of the realms are mentioned in various Suttas.
Here is an interesting quote from the Conclusion (page 70) of "The Ethico-psychological Basis of the Concept of Gods in Early Buddhist Literature" by Ven. Dr. Hindagala Gnanadhara Thera:

In ancient India, people were inclined to seek refuge in divine beings as they were frightened by the forces of nature. This had become the nature of the majority of the people. In view of this fact, some suggest that it is psychological, but there is no basis for that presumption. They are naturally subjected to diverse rites and rituals, because they are haunted by natural disasters such as epidemics and other inauspicious forces. They beseech gods for help. Such rites and rituals are observed, not only by the illiterate people, but also the educated ones. It is quite clear from the above examples that man is degraded mentally. The weak people seek refuge in the mighty ones. Such things cannot be averted as long as this process of thinking is not reversed.
Although Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, it does not deny the existence of gods, as non-human beings who are subject to all weaknesses as other human beings are. At the same time, it does not believe in a creator god. Nevertheless, it accepts the existence of various invisible powers such as yakkha, pisāca, etc. These invisible powers are not capable of helping men to get to the highest bliss Nibbāna, or salvation. It cannot be denied that these invisible forces for mankind for a short while as they are transient. A person who is cultured and ethically elevated does not need such help or assistance from any divine forces, visible or invisible.

In other words, belief in supernatural beings is not required to be a Buddhist; they play no role in the Theravāda doctrine.
My personal opinion is that Buddhism “imported” gods from the popular Vedic culture (and sometimes changed their personalities). I see the Devā and Māra as a literary device, like the Jātakas, not to be taken literally. Great for story-telling, but not at all central to Buddhist beliefs (Jātakas have talking animals... they are the ancient Indian equivalent to cartoons and Sesame Street).

I am quite sure that cultural context affected the treatment of so-called 'supernatural' beings throughout Buddhist history. But it is wise to be sensitive to how our own materialist 'Church of Science' imposes beliefs that are also culturally specific and depart at many points from an empirical basis into faith-based assertions.

I have no problem with the "non-scientific view" that there are non-human realms. The specifics of the "31 planes", of "Māra" (an import from the Vedas) or "Devā" ("The Gods of your Vedic religion come to the Buddha for advice, so the Buddha is superior") are culturally contextual. In my opinion, the specifics are there to enhance the story, but I am fine with the principles of non-human realms, rebirth, etc. (even though they are non-scientific).

Makes sense, thanks for clarifying that point

First, it might help to probe the meaning of "supernatural" in the Buddhist context.  I think this blog post covers it pretty well. In particular:

The very notion of ‘Supernatural’ is one that, it seems to me, arises from Western philosophical assumptions. the basic idea is that there is ‘this world’, which is rational and subject to explanation according to the laws of physics, and the ‘other world’, which operates according to a quite different set of principles, and where the laws of physics no longer apply.
In Buddhism, however, the essential description of the world is not provided by the laws of physics, or other material phenomena. The most important ‘laws’ are the three characteristics – impermanence, suffering, not-self. And these describe any other state of being just as well as they describe ours. For theistic religions, ‘heaven’ is eternal – that is, not subject to conditions, and independent from Time. But for Buddhists, heaven is just as temporary as anything else.
The Sri Lankan philosopher David Kalupahana has developed this idea in detail. he argues that Buddhism is empirical through and through; that even those aspects of Buddhist belief that seem to invoke the ‘supernatural’ in fact merely involve a refining and extension of ordinary sensory capacities.

Starting from that perspective, I would say: yes, in every tradition of Buddhism I'm aware of it is agreed that Buddha knew the beings we refer to as "supernatural" in our culture - which, from a Buddhist perspective, are  just other varieties of sentient beings. Because Buddha is omniscient, he has the same comprehensive knowledge of these beings as of any other sentient being. As summarized here, that knowledge includes:

(3) The force of being omnisciently aware of the various spiritual aspirations (mos-pa) of all limited beings (sentient beings): the inferior ones for this life, the middling ones for liberation, the superior ones for enlightenment, and those that are concealed (unconscious or expressed unclearly). In this way, he can guide each being accordingly.
(4) The force of being omnisciently aware of the source of everyone’s cognitions, as well as the source of their enlightenment (khams, their Buddha family-traits, Buddha-natures). He knows where all their thoughts, ideas, and misunderstandings have come from and also those factors in each of them that will lead to their realization of their fullest potential. In this way, he can correct all others when they have gone astray and draw out their strongest points.
(5) The force of being omnisciently aware of the superior and less-than-superior levels of everyone’s powers (dbang-po). Thus, he always teaches others in accordance with their intelligence and abilities so that they never become discouraged.

Sorry, but I am not familiar with the "31 planes of existence" so hopefully someone else can speak to that specifically. But the bottom line to me is that if Buddha knows all beings, he knows their various abodes as well however they are categorized.

The concept of this world (ayaṃ loko) and the other world (paro loko) is not absent from the Pāli texts.

Thank you. I have very limited knowledge of these texts since I must rely on translations. Could you explain (or suggest a reference that explains) whether/how this "other world" stands outside the laws of nature in the sense of being 'supernatural'? Or is there not a sufficiently parallel concept of 'laws of nature' for this question to make sense?

Did the Buddha have any personal experience with maras and devas and
  supernatural beings in general?

Yes, throughout the suttas and many of the Mahayana sutras, like the Lotus Sutra, it is mentioned the various respledent powers that Gautama Buddha shows but also noteworthy is Buddha's personal attendant Ananda who is able to memorize everything the Buddha says but isn't able to get into the assembly of monks meeting after Buddha's death because he does not have samadhi.
Only when Ananda is able to attain samadhi (an actual achievement rather than just memorization) is he able to use super powers and join the assembly in discussion of Buddhism's fate.

And, if I'm not mistaken, the 31 planes of existence is something he
  taught. So, how did he come to know of them?

He viewed them directly when he entered samadhi, visiting each realm in turn.
This is a scientific experiment because it is something that we ourselves can do, as well, after we achieve state of concentration (samadhi). Little is left to blind belief in Buddhism.
The state of samadhi is also useful in investigating the other dharmas in Buddhism, such as the various mind objects and maras.

friend, I believe you have mixed up the Ven. Ananda and the Ven. Sariputta

It is very clear to me that Maras, Devas and other supernatural beings are real phenomena that you can observe directly, if you know where to look. When ancients spoke of souls, spirits, demons etc. they were not crazy. They just did not mean it in the naive sense we think they meant it.

Did the Buddha have any personal experience with maras and devas and supernatural beings in general?

We have no idea what the Buddha experienced - we know nothing at all about the Buddha as a person (not even his name). But the traditional stories about someone called "Buddha" certainly portray him as having such experiences. In this Buddhists myths and legends are much like any religious literature. If we take the Buddhists texts literally, then there is no reason not to also take religious texts like the Christian Bible literally also. Though the two are mutually exclusive on many matters.
Humans beings evolved to attribute agency to unexplained events, in fact most mammals and birds do this to some extent. And to attribute human qualities to such agents. This is why gods have human motivations. We also have a tolerance for minimally counter-intuitive concepts like invisible agents. Certain events like out-of-body experiences act to convince us of the required ontological dualism, so that belief in a disembodied mind is possible. Without a careful analysis such things seem plausible to most people. But with careful analysis invisible agents vanish (as it were). See also Why Are Karma and Rebirth (Still) Plausible (for Many People)? Part I and Part II which summarise ideas from Justin L Barrett's book on the psychology of belief and relate them to Buddhist beliefs.
Early Buddhists adopted supernatural beings from local animistic cults (rukkhadevatā, yakkha, nāga, kinnnara etc) as well as gods from Brahmanism (Brahmā, Indra aka Sakka, and Agni; and more generally the devas and asuras). They also adapted some other beliefs from Brahmanism, often in the form of some kind of parody, such as hungry ghosts (preta - literally "the departed"), the spirits of the recently dead, to which Brahmins made food offerings to sustain them on their journey to Brahman. The idea of Hell probably came from Zoroastrianism. There do not seem to be any characteristically "Buddhist" supernatural agents, except for the Buddha himself who is apparently able to see back in time, travel to heavenly worlds, see the spirits of the departed, fly through the air, and read minds. Such skills as we rarely see these days.
Unfortunately for Buddhism, the laws of physics now completely preclude life after death. See my essay There is No Life After Death, Sorry. Unfortunately there is just no way to accommodate invisible agents that can interact with matter and remain undetectable by scientific instruments. Either something interacts with matter in a way that makes a difference on the human scale, and we can see how this happens because it happens on a human scale, in which case we ought to be able to incorporate it into theories of matter; or no such interactions take place, and we must seek other explanations for the things we believe to be supernatural agents.

Taken together we see that this kind of question makes many assumptions that are not valid. Once we eliminate the parts of it that are based on one or another fallacy, there is nothing left to answer. The best we can do is rephrase it in terms of what the tradition says about the mythical Buddha.
Is the mythical Buddha portrayed as having experiences of supernatural beings? Yes, he is. He is portrayed, for example, as able to travel to the deva and Brahmā worlds at will. And he can see where beings are born after they die. He also converses with yakkhas and devas, often devas that no one else can see. In the tradition the Buddha himself has all kinds of supernatural abilities. Indeed over time the Buddha came to be attribute with more and greater supernatural abilities and magical abilities, and ultimately Gautama became a mere physical manifestation of a cosmic principle of Buddhahood (which is an idea that parallels the Upaniṣadic brahman).

I don't agree that taking one faith system literally implies a necessity of taking another literally. How is that logically required? Also physics says nothing about life after death. All one can do is interpret results of physics into their own philosophy.

@ulmo Read the essay I linked to. Physics has plenty to say about it.

I agree with the the logic of your arguments and applaud your well thought out response. Respectfully, I disagree with your conclusions entirely. I'm not Buddhist, more of a physicist looking past our known measurements, observations and logic.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is there a sanskrit translation of the Pali tipitaka online?
I see the ambatta sutta in pali and in English, but my personal preference is to read it in Sanskrit. Is there a sanskrit translation available online (say in a scanned book at archive.org)?

Very few of the early Buddhist texts survive in Sanskrit translation. Also the Sanskrit translations were made relatively late, perhaps the 4th or 5th century CE and they had frequently been substantially changed by this point. For example the Samaññaphala Sutta does survive in Sanskrit, but it is a very different text (and as far as I know, only available in a PhD thesis).
There is a comprehensive list of parallels in different languages on a website called Sutta Central. In the case of the Ambaṭṭa Sutta there are only fragments of a Sanskrit text extant. Most of these are only in manuscript form.
The Pāḷi Canon (in the Burmese, 6th Council Edition) is available in Devanārarī and a number of other non-Roman scripts via tipitaka.org

Thanks for telling me about the Sutta Central website! Its such a relief to be able to see pAlI in devanAgarI, and the hindI rendering.

The hindI rendering uses more sanskrit-like words, which makes it so much easier to relate to.

If you wanted a Devanāgarī rendering rather than a Sanskrit translation you should have said. For reading online: http://www.tipitaka.org/deva/

No, I indeed wanted Sanskrit translation, but now settle for pAli and hindI in devanAgarI in its absence. (Thanks for the new link too!)

Link: http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Buddhist-Texts/BT-index.htm
The Pāḷi Dhammapada is the second collection in the same Nikāya. Although many of the texts in the Suttanipāta are found to have parallels in Sanskrit (and also in Chinese and Tibetan translations), there is no sign that this collection as such ever existed outside of the Theravāda tradition.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Can phala be experienced too often?
If a person enters phala(nibbana) too frequently can they develop a tolerance to the peacefulness of it?

There's no question of tolerance or intolerance. Nibbana is non-experiential(Avedeita) peace.

Developing tolerance for anything means that there is change, transformation, conditionality and causation present.
Nibbana is unchanging, unconditioned and uncaused so developing tolerance would not be possible.
Tolerance is a phenomena that belongs to conditioned reality.


text:
Do five precepts protect?
All five precepts are relatively clearly defined except maybe the third precept. There are different types of women that are prohibited, prostitute is not one of the requirement to break the third precept.
If, for example, someone likes to visit prostitute, that person does not break the third precept. Do five precepts protect us from falling to lower realms? What is the purpose of practicing five precepts? What protects you from taking rebirth in the realms lower than human? Thanks.

The precepts are generally considered to be training principles (sikkhapada) which prepare us for more rigorous practice or which generate merit in order to gain a more fortunate rebirth (sugati) in the next life. And by "more fortunate" we definitely mean circumstances in which one meets and can practice the Dharma.
Many Pāḷi suttas outline how sīla (practising the precepts) leads onto more intensive practices such as saṃvara "restraint with the respect to the senses" or indriyesu guttdvara "guarding the doors of the senses". And these in turn lead into more intensive practises like eliminating the hindrances, and then into practising jhāna and vipassanā. Of course in other schools of Buddhism the progression into more intensive practice follows different paths, but on the whole the precepts are seen as preliminary to practising more intensively.
Traditionally for lay people, who do not undertake intensive religious practices, practising the precepts is an important source of merit (puñña) which they hope will accumulate enough to crate a fortunate rebirth next time. Thus traditionally we could say that the precepts protect one from a bad destination (duggati). Traditionally making gifts to monastics and supporting their lifestyle is an important source of merit. Generosity generally is seen as generating merit.
In modern times the distinction between monastics and lay people has begun to break down. Some groups see monasticism as far less important that it has been traditionally, or indeed as irrelevant, and many lay people have now taken up practices traditionally only done by monastics. So it's not always clear how the tradition applies.
On the issue of visiting prostitutes I would say that if one has made a commitment to be faithful to a sexual partner, such as one does in marriage, then visiting a prostitute is clearly a breach of that commitment. It is a lie, and therefore a breach of the precepts.
If one has no such commitment then the situation is more ambiguous. But in order for the act to be completely ethical one would need to know for sure, for example, that the prostitute was not under any compulsion whatever, to do sex work. One would need to be sure that the agreed fee was absolutely fair and that the prostitute received their full share of that money. In my view one could never be certain of these, and thus one would always be risking demerit or apuñña.
As with all the precepts, one must look at the spirit of them as well as the letter. The fundamental principle is "do no harm". One cannot choose to do a harmful action and claim that it is not mentioned in the letter of the precepts. Harm is harm. The institution of prostitution almost always does harm to someone. One can always ask oneself the question: "Would I want my son or daughter to earn their living having sex with strangers for money, risking catching AIDS and so on? Is that what I would want for my children?" My answer to this, despite not having children, is "no".

In the threefold training, sila (morality) corresponds to the precepts. Sila conditions samadhi (concentration) which in turn conditions panna (wisdom).
A common theme across the Buddha's teachings is that of nekkhamma (renunciation and pleasures borne of it). The precepts develop the quality of nekkhamma since the individual is practicing giving up certain unskillful qualities. When living by the precepts correctly the individual is practicing the following: abandoning arisen unskillful qualities, guarding against unarisen unskillful qualities, arousing unarisen wholesome qualities, and maintaining/cultivating arisen wholesome qualities. These four cases are known as cattaro-sammappadhana (four right exertions) which are associated with the path factor samma vayama (right effort).
One can meditate all they want but if sila is broken, i.e. the individual is deficient in virtue, then any samadhi attained is also going to be broken. Broken in the sense that it won't be samma samadhi (right concentration), so it wouldn't be conducive to attaining wisdom. From the perspective of the noble eightfold path, the path factors condition each other successively. Samma ditti (right view) conditions all other path factors, which is why it's listed as the first path factor, so it's not possible to have samma samadhi without first having samma ditti. And it's not possible to have samma ditti without being compassionate towards oneself and others since true wisdom goes hand in hand with compassion.
The training rules (precepts) are not hard and fast rules intended as prescriptive laws. Individuals who are advanced in virtue would go above and beyond the minimum criteria specified in the rules. For example, after having experienced peace of mind as a consequence of abstaining from killing, individuals are inclined to also give up any other type of physical or psychological harm. It's a positive feedback loop that leads to the abandonment of the second hindrance (nivarana) which is ill-will (vyapada). In the case of the third precept, a beginning practitioner will abstain from non-consensual sex. One who is slightly more advanced might give up visiting prostitutes. One who is much more advanced would give up porn and masturbation because they see through practice that doing so is conducive to their meditation practice. The positive feedback in this case is conducive to the abandonment of the first hindrance which is sensual desire (kamachhanda).
With respect to rebirth in the lower realms, there is no guarantee that you will not be reborn in the lower realms unless you have attained stream entry. Practicing the five precepts can reduce the risk of being born in the lower realms, but understand that this is only temporary. A lot of Buddhists that believe in literal rebirth are very miopic about this. They think that making merit in this lifetime will help them secure a good birth in the next life. However, they fail to see that once that merit runs out they fall back down even lower than where they are now.

Thanks all for the reply.
I understand sila is a foundation for samadhi and the practice of samadhi is important to develop wisdom. But I still couldn’t answer my question, does praciting five precepts (visiting prostitute) protect us from falling to lower realms? Is practicing third precept a wholesome deed or not?

@Jayarava institution of prostitution is probably another thing. If visiting prostitute is not right then to be certain the prostitute get their full share of the money does not make it right either. But as far as I know, visiting prostitute is not breaking the third precept. If this action is unwholesome, why people keep practicing five precepts? Does five precept really protect us from taking rebirth in lower realms?

@Steve only one who has attained stream entry is guaranteed to not be reborn in the lower realms. For everyone else there are no guarantees.

@Steve, many actions are ultimately considered 'unwholesome' that do not break the precepts. Cf. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1860/masturbation-does-it-break-the-3rd-precept

Thanks again guys.
So the notion five precepts are the minimum requirement to be reborn as a human is not true. Five precepts can’t guarantee someone to not be reborn in lower realms but the practice of five precepts can make someone has fortunate rebirth.


text:
If kamma is not everything, then what is that?
Kamma is one of the thing that is not ponderable.
We experience many things in life, if a fatal accident is often understood as a result of kamma then what about other relatively small things such as forget to turn off the stove, not preparing oneself well enough before attending a job interview, etc..
Is everything not kamma until it becomes a big event?
What are they if they are not kamma?

The idea that everything that happens is a result of kamma is a common enough wrong view to have a name in Pāḷi: Pubbekata-hetu-diṭṭhi (literally "the with-past-actions-as-cause view"). For a canonical discussion of this you could try the Devadaha Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya 101). It's a long and complex argument that is difficult to summarise, the Buddha works through a range of combinations and shows that most of them, including the view that everything that one experiences is a result of past actions, are illogical.
The main result of accumulated karma is usually rebirth, although some karma may ripen as vedanā "sensations". Karma was not, at least originally, intended to describe every little thing that happens, it was intended to explain how mental states drive the cycles of rebirth. At least one sutta, Karajakāyasuttaṃ (AN 10.219; v.299-301), argues that rebirth wipes the slate clean, but most karma theories allow for karma to ripen many lifetimes hence.
At least one text describes many different kinds of causes for misfortunes. In the Sīvaka Sutta (SN 36.21) eight different causes are summarised in a verse:

Pittaṃ semhañca vāto ca, sannipātā utūni ca;
   Visamaṃ opakkamikaṃ, kammavipākena aṭṭhamī ti.
Bile, phlegm, wind, combinations of them, and regular processes;
  Something disagreeable, sudden pains, and kamma as eighth.

Regular processes (utu) might be seasons, but it can also refer, for example, to the menstrual cycle. In this view a fatal car accident is not necessarily to do with karma, though where you are reborn afterwards is. Note that Bhikkhu Thanissaro has argued against this interpretation of the Sīvaka Sutta.

The point here is that old and new kamma do not override other causal factors operating in the universe — such as those recognized by the physical sciences — but instead find their expression within those factors."

However this "everything happens for a reason" (teleological) argument is weak by modern philosophical standards. It's a kin to the Christian claim that "God moves in mysterious ways" - there is a reason, but mere mortals cannot understand it. It only works in Buddhism because on the whole the conditions for an event are said to be in a past life and therefore unknown to us (until we begin to develop the three mystical skills or tevijjā, one of which is knowledge of former lives).
Karma is a very changeable doctrine. So that many modern traditions teach something different. Many Tibetan schools, for example, say that karma is responsible for everything that happens. The car accident would be the result of some action or actions in the past. I personally do not find this teaching compelling, and it has many philosophical problems.
The standard view of karma is that it determines which of the five "realms" (Hell, gods & asuras, humans, animals, hungry ghosts) you are born into, and perhaps the original circumstances of your birth. After that things unfold in their own way according to the nature of the realm and the choices one makes.

Some people have tall body, other people have broad shoulder, but they are not caused by weather, bile, phlegm, etc.. If it’s neither one of eight different causes of misfortunes nor kamma, then what is that?  When Buddha was asked why some people are wealthy, some are poor, some are beautiful, some people are ugly, the answer was beings are the owner of their own actions (kamma), It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority.  It seems to me kamma is more than which realm we will be born into.

Mogallana was beaten to death, this was the kamma of killing his own parents in past life. The death was fatal and tragic, it was the result of killing his own parents.  If kamma is the reason someone is attractive physically, have good education and wealthy, would good income, gene, good education, good teacher are caused by his own kamma?

One must distinguish between sutta stories and commentarial stories. It helps if you cite the sources for the stories you quote.


text:
mind-body relationship
“finding a place for the mind in a world that is fundamentally physical”
—has been puzzled over for centuries, and is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. The reason is that apparently every possible solution has inadequacies. Anyone familiar with the philosophical literature is aware of all the problems with Cartesian substance dualism, reductive physicalism, eliminative materialism, behaviorism and functionalism, non-reductive physicalism and emergentism. One is tempted to agree with Colin McGinn that the cognitive apparatus of humans is intrinsically inadequate to the problem of explaining the relation between the mind and the brain.  How something like consciousness can emerge from something like the brain seems totally inexplicable.
What is the Buddhist explanation for Mind-Body problem?

Re: "seems totally inexplicable"... I recall that someone proved mathematically that bumblebees cannot fly. Fortunately, the bees took no notice of them. What if you succeeded in completely understanding yourself? Hmm... Consider Nonduality. If that doesn't work, try Advaita : )

The Mind-Body problem is based on a mistaken and non-empirical premise: that the world is “fundamentally physical.” Because every school of Buddhism that I’m aware of has avoided this error, it is hard to find any Buddhist explanations that address it in the terms of modern philosophy.
As I understand it, all the various theories you refer to stemmed from the basic project of trying to discern the mind of an inaccessible Creator through understanding his works (like we might try to understand a clockmaker’s mind by examining his clocks); and subsequently having to deal with the collapse of faith in such a Creator by trying to understand how the clocks could build and run themselves (so to speak).
This dead-end philosophizing has sustained itself not because of any advances in solving the problem created by this error; but by taking a free ride on the extraordinary scientific and technological advances that have been made without needing to question ontological assumptions. Yet it has left our society deeply impoverished in our knowledge and use of consciousness, which makes Buddhism a vital corrective for our modern age.
The one Buddhist teacher I know who has devoted significant attention to this issue is B. Alan Wallace. While embracing the scientific method, he is sharply critical of the kinds of philosophical baggage that shortcut applying this method to consciousness.  To give a sense of his analysis, I’ll quote an extended passage from his chapter in an excellent book he edited, called “Buddhism & Science - Breaking New Ground” (pp 13-14), in which he addresses the 'physicalist' assumption of the dogma of scientific materialism:

The research instruments of science, since the time of Galileo, have been designed to measure physical phenomena only. Thus if other types of phenomena exist, they must lie outside the domain of science as it has developed thus far. Advocates of the metaphysical principle of physicalism, however, have concluded that only those phenomena that can be detected with the tools of science actually exist. The universe is believed to consist solely of matter and its emergent properties. To understand this principle, it is crucial to recognize that the matter in question is not the familiar stuff that we bump into in everyday experience. A rock held in the hand, for instance, is experienced as having a certain color, texture, and weight. But all those qualities are secondary attributes that exist, according to [sociobiologist Edward O.] Wilson, not in the objective world but as representations inside our heads. The matter that is the fundamental stuff of the objective universe, according to scientific materialism, exists independently of all such secondary attributes that arise only in relation to a conscious subject. The real properties of matter are its inherent primary attributes that exist independently of all modes of detection.
What does science know today about the nature of matter? Physicists agree that matter consists of atoms, which in turn are made up of elementary particles such as electrons and protons. There are then further speculations concerning quarks, superstrings, and so on with regard to the component parts of elementary particles. But the actual nature of these fundamental building blocks of the universe is somewhat shrouded in mystery. Some physicists argue that atoms are emergent properties of space or space-time. But which space are they referring to? There are actually countless possible spaces with their own geometries, each of which is equally valid and self-consistent. Others maintain that atoms are not things at all but are better viewed as sets of relationships (Wallace 1996:55).
Even if matter is regarded as some independent stuff existing independently in the objective universe, its mass and spatial and temporal dimensions are not fixed or absolute but, according to relativity theory, depend upon the inertial frame of reference from which they are measured. And, in terms of quantum mechanics, it appears increasingly dubious whether the elementary particles of matter have any discrete location independent of all systems of measurement. Ever since the origins of quantum mechanics experts have expressed diverse views, ranging from the assertion that elementary particles exist independently as real, distinct entities to the view that there is no objectively existing quantum realm at all (Herbert 1985)! As physics continues to progress, the primary status of matter appears to be on the decline. As physicist Steven Weinberg recently commented, “In the physicist’s recipe for the world, the list of ingredients no longer includes particles. Matter thus loses its central role in physics. All that is left are principles of symmetry” (Cole 1999).
Upon confronting such startling lack of consensus about the nature and primacy of matter, the physicalist may take refuge in the notion of energy and its conservation as the primary stuff of the universe. But, once again, one is bound for disappointment, for, according to physicist Richard Feynman, the conservation of energy is a mathematical principle, not a description of a mechanism or anything concrete. He then goes on to acknowledge, “It is important to realize that in physics today we have no knowledge of what energy is” (Feynman, Leighton, and Sands 1963:4–2).
For scientific materialists such as Edward Wilson, signs of the existence and primacy of matter are to be found everywhere, even though those signs are all indirect (existing, as they do, as mere mental representations). Although matter is never detected as an independently existent stuff in the objective world, it is assumed to be the origin and basis of all that we experience. As to its actual nature, there have always been many competing views, and the number of hypotheses does not appear to be on the decline. Upon reflection, it seems that matter presently fills the role for the materialist that God has traditionally filled for the theist. And the diverse speculative theories of “materialogians” provide little support for the belief that such mysterious stuff can support the ontological burden of the entire universe of subjective and objective phenomena.

I think the problem stems from a desire to know the mechanistic workings of reality; e.g. how one thing affects or effects another, rather than simple that it does so.  Buddhism is, for the most part, terribly devoid of explanations about the former, since it is ultimately a practical path. As the Buddha said time and again,

Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering.
-- MN 22 (Bodhi, trans)

In the context of your question, as others have pointed out, there really isn't any problem on the surface: physical reality clearly exists, as does mental reality; they also clearly interact with each other in a manner that is fairly easily definable.
The problem comes when you try to know more beyond these simple facts, i.e. how and why they exist and interact the way they do. These questions are foreign to Buddhism because they are not really useful at all, and moreover are probably ultimately outside of the realm of what can be empirically known.

Namasthe Banthe -/- Dhamma Greetings .In Madhupindika Sutta:( The Ball of Honey ) Some what clarification is given as  "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye. Re."Dhatu Vibhanga & Mula pariyaya"

@Shrawaka that passage is descriptive, not explanatory; it doesn't answer the question of how mind and body are able to interact, just describes the manner in which they do.

There is no Mind-Body problem in Buddhism.
The relationship between body and mind is well described by the Buddha in form of e.g. the 5 aggregates i.e., materiality, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness and Dependent Origination.
But not only is it well described, the Buddha teaches us to go and find out for ourselves through the practice of insight meditation.
Philosophy and science fails the perspective by both holding an extreme view.
Philosophy is only based on intellectual knowledge, i.e. knowledge without any reference point (experiental knowledge) to reality.
Science holds the annihilationist-view and believes that the Mind/Consciousness is created by the brain and that when the physical body breaks down then the Mind will also "die".
Buddhism sits in the middle (way), steering away from both extremes.

Exactly, But are there any source from Tripitaka that directly address this problem.

One answer is that reality is neither primarily physical nor mind, but awareness. Looking at Physics, we see the two-slit experiment, which seems to indicate that objects such as photons are "aware" of their environment and "make choices".
So, the simplest answer is to remove the quotes. Every thing, down to the lowest level of being, has awareness, and makes choices. Done.

In Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties "'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the six properties: the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, the wind property, the space property, the consciousness property. 'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

The evidence or proof your looking for won't come by using intellectual concepts or material tools.  The mind-body relationship happens at extremly fast speeds, in the labratory of one's moment by moment experience, something like this: Eye consciousness(mind) makes contact with a rose that causes desire to have the rose(mind). That causes the arm to go reaching out(body) to pick the rose. Accidently a thorn pricks the finger causing a pain signal to go to the brain(body) causing a negative reaction to the pain(mind) causing the arm to move away from the threat(body) and so on. I hope this helps. -Metta

In The Root of All Things  “He perceives the base of infinite consciousness as the base of infinite consciousness. Having perceived the base of infinite consciousness as the base of infinite consciousness,
he conceives himself as the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself in the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself apart from the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives the base of infinite consciousness to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the base of infinite consciousness. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.  https://suttacentral.net/en/mn1

Yes, the mind-body problem is NOT a problem - it an interaction between the mind and the body.  I do agree with earlier yuttadhammo's comments and with the other similar comments.
The mind and the body influence one another in one or another way. Mostly the mind governs the body.
There are mounting evidence of how the mind affect the body. If you have a look the outcomes of implication of mindfulness practices/meditation in psychotherapy you will be convinced. You will find that even a few meditation sessions enhance people's well-being. These outcomes of mindfulness meditations say that the mind reduces symptoms of psychopathologies such as stress and depression levels. You may ask what is about? From perspective of biological psychology and body physiology, it says that by meditating you training your mind ( about your feeling, cognition and emotion), which in turn influence your neurons and endocrine system to decrease or increase particular neurotransmitters, and of course taking, controlling neuron firing. This is the final outcome that we can measure in numbers. Don't we? In is not introspective evidence, not subjective it is measurable biochemical stuff in your in my body.
Bringing these together it become clear that the mind governs the body in one or another way. That mean they interact with each other. In other words, by training your mind (mindfulness meditation) you influencing your body through  through emotion regulation, feeling and cognition (letting go, accepting thing you can not control and so on).  These changes in turn in one or another way affect you body physiology (hormones, neurotransmitters..). And the final outcome are reduced ill health symptoms and enhanced well-being.
Please go through this article (http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/havery.htm) and you and will find profound, valid and sound explanation on this topic.

The mind body relationships is well explained in the Patthana. This is a wast and complex subject but let me highlight some of them.
Let's take the one of the relationships Ārammaṇa paccaya – object condition. Here combination of object (89 cittas, 52 cetasikas, 28 rūpas, Nibbāna, Paññatti) lead to mind (89 cittas, 52 cetasikas). This is just one such instance. For further information see: Paṭṭhāna - conditional relations part 1 part 2 by Ayya Agganyani which is a good summary (but as of now still incomplete) and other literature on Paṭṭhāna - Conditional Relations perhaps from http://www.abhidhamma.com/.
The relationships include:

body conditioning mind, body, mind and body
mind conditioning mind, body, mind and body
mind and body conditioning mind, body, mind and body

Though I have taken liberty to condense the multiple relationships a summarization of the Paṭṭhāna by Dr. Nandamālābhivaṃsa contains this in more detail from page 7 onwards.
This is found in Pattana vol 1, vol 2 in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Further explanation can be found in Tikapatthana vol 1, vol 2, vol 3 translation if available. Also keep an eye on: Tikapatthana in English

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


text:
If Rebirth is not taken literally then why seek Enlightenment?
I've read that some Buddhists do not believe in the literality of rebirth. As someone who is new to the study of Buddhism, this is confusing to me. My understanding, which perhaps is incorrect, is that a Buddhist seeks enlightenment in order to obtain emancipation from Samsara. Yet Samsara is a cycle of rebirth, thus if rebirth is not taken literally it seems natural to then not take Samsara literally. If this is so, then what kind of emancipation is sought after in seeking enlightenment? Isn't the goal of seeking enlightenment to eliminate rebirth? What then are other reasons for seeking enlightenment apart from the emancipation from Samsara?

Mostly secular Buddhists don't like to believe in rebirth. AFAIK they are uncomfortable in accepting teachings which can't be proven yet by modern science.

Further to "the literality of rebirth" see also Then where did the concept of “rebirth” come from? (which is one of the more recent topics on this site to ask for a definition of what 'rebirth' means),

Rebirth is an actual thing. There are too many anecdotes and too many other cultures that have their own way of explaining. The thing is though that rebirth is not "real" just like samsara is not "real"

I am a Rinzai Zen Monk with a decade-long monastic background so my answer will be relevant within our school's framework.
From a Zen POV being 'reborn' exists only within Reality.
Reality is purely this one moment here and now.
With each breath, with each action we are reborn. The choices we make are fresh and new. The Enlightened being will make those choices in accordance with what they experience.
Because they are living in the here and now they are also making these choices without any reference to the past or the future because these are purely abstract concepts since neither of them is here and now.
The Enlightened person is literally reborn with each and every experience (in Japanese Zen terms these are known as 'Nen' - ie. the time it takes to register each experience). An Enlightenment experience is when you fully experience this for the first time: when a drop of water falling on your head or the call of a crow suddenly awaken you to this new awareness
There are other types of rebirth of course. Such as the delusional rebirths, when one succumbs to any of the poisons (Ignorance, Anger, Greed) and is reborn in 'hell'.
Buddhism is a very wide philosophy with a wide application of the same basic terms and concepts. What i have just said is not really valid for a Theravada Buddhist. It would be explained, understood and practiced differently by someone of a Pure land Path (JoDo ShinShu for instance) even though they are part of the Mahayana.

Hello Bhante and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

Thank you Bhante. I find multiple truths can co-exist. A shadow, a photograph, a mirror and an xray can all be representations of me, but they can each be so different. Rebirth has so many interpretations, thanks for adding your dimension to it.

Thank you, but this answer sounds quite valid for Theravada Buddhism... we Buddhist sectarians are usually more compatible than we think ;)

Let's consider Andrei's definition of Buddhism, for example (because it's a short and easy definition).

Buddhists believe that human experiences originate in the mind, training which through cultivation of ethics, meditation, and wisdom leads to nirvana (the release from suffering) or enlightenment -- the insight into the true nature of things.

experiences originate in the mind
I think that, if you believe that experiences originate in the mind, then you might prefer Buddhism to other religions (which, tend to suggest that God is the creator; alternatively, atheistic views which suggest there is no creator): and then, if you are attracted to Buddhism for any reason, you might then align with or adopt Buddhist goals (e.g. for enlightenment).
cultivation of ethics
Similarly you might admire Buddhism's system of ethics (e.g. "don't kill", "don't steal", and "don't lie", etc.); and, you might prefer or choose those precepts instead of other religions' (whose most important commandments include for example "Thou shalt have no other gods before me").
nirvana (the release from suffering)
If (or assuming that) you are aware of suffering (or 'anxiety') in this life, isn't it true that "the release from suffering" is obviously (or self-evidently) desirable, in this life? You may not need to believe in rebirth, in order to want release from suffering (perhaps you do need to believe in suffering, though).
enlightenment (the insight into the true nature of things)
I'm not sure what this ('enlightenment' and 'insight') means, but I understand it to mean "having insight, can now help others to release themselves from suffering." Again, I think that wanting that probably only requires a belief in suffering and some compassion for others (i.e. you can want that for your sake and for other's sake regardless of whether and how you understand the word "rebirth").

In summary it's not necessarily only emancipation from samsara (i.e. the cycle of rebirth): it could be emancipation from dukkha; and also emancipation from the various kleshas, and fetters, and so on.
Whether or not they understand "rebirth", someone might feel a desire for refuge in this life.

What then are other reasons for seeking enlightenment apart from the emancipation from Samsara?

In Samsara, the conditioned reality, everything exists due to causes and conditions.
Mental and physical phenomena are constantly arising and ceasing. They are ever-changing, uncontrollable and oppressive.
All conditioned phenomena follows a certain "order or recipe". I have made a drawing to illustrate this process. What can be seen here is that phenomena has 3 phases, i.e. Arising - Presence - Dissolution:
Click on photos for full size

Even in the "presence-phase" phenomena are not stable or permanent but in a constant flux heading towards their own break up. Phenomena that exists due to causes and conditions are impermanent, meaning that they cannot be relied on. If one tries to rely on them or put trust in them, they will break up and leave one with only suffering and a void.
Nibbana is not caused or conditioned, it is unconditioned, unborn, uncaused, permanent, secure, stable. It does not rise and fall. It does not produce suffering.
Here is a description of Nibbana from the Buddha himself:

"Bhikkhus, I will teach you the taintless and the path leading to the taintless. Listen to that ...
"Bhikkhus, I will teach you the truth and the path leading to the truth ... I will teach you the far shore ... the subtle ... the very difficult to see ... the unaging ... the stable ... the undis integrating ... the unmanifest ... the unproliferated ... the peaceful ... the deathless ... the sublime ... the auspicious ... the secure ... the destruction of craving ... the wonderful ... the amazing ... the unailing ... the unailing state ... Nibbana ... the unafflicted ... dispassion ... purity ... freedom ... the unadhesive ... the island .., the shelter ... the asylum ... the
  refuge ...
-- SN 43: Asankhatasamyutta, p. 1378, Bodhi translation

The stable, the secure, the wonderful, freedom, the shelter.. I don't know about other beings, but these words/reasons seem pretty compelling to me.

“The true miracle is not to walk on water. The true miracle is to walk
  peacefully on the green earth, dwelling deeply in the present moment
  and feeling truly alive.”
― Thích Nhất Hạnh

Enlightenment is about peacefully walking here on this earth in the here and now. It isn't for the fruits of after-life though there's that angle to it. In my view it is worth the price of admission, if, in the here and now I can be less of a burden on others; and be compassionate and helpful to all around me. I view enlightenment as radical maturity and responsibility. It's not a supernormal power as much as an expertise of very human powers.
Lots of people equate enlightenment with magical powers, or perfection, or immortality, even though even the Buddha specifically made none of these a condition for arhatship. There were schisms in ancient Buddhist schools over this very point in the past.
I can't deny most accounts of the famous enlightened ones tend to emphasise that angle of better than human, but I think it is just commonplace elevation of the standard, just like most gyms tend to use a Mr. Universe kind of model for their advertising brochure. It's not a waste of time to go to the gym just because I am personally unlikely to become Mr. Universe. It's also not misleading, because with the right effort one can become so. We go to the gym to become healthy, if we can become even better, that's fantastic.
Growing less angry or sad, less lustful and grasping and more present and available to all beings is a useful way to live. If other positive attributes accumulate, that's even better.

"It's not that satori is unimportant, but it's not the part of Zen
  that needs to be stressed."
-- Shunryu Suzuki

Apropos rebirth:
Don't believe in the Buddha or science blindly. One says rebirth exists, the other says it's not proven even though there's periodically things that appear to be evidence for it. Enter samadhi and investigate for yourself.
In any case, someone who believes in rebirth is definitely going to be more responsible about their actions towards others and the planet than someone who firmly believes in you-only-live-once.

If Rebirth is not taken literally then why seek Enlightenment?

Because Enlightenment is at the top of Maslow's Pyramid. No matter what you do, no matter how satisfied you are, there is always something missing. We could almost say, sentient beings are pre-wired to want nothing less than Enlightenment.

While a moment-to-moment interpretation of rebirth might be useful for insight practice, the Buddha actually was quite explicit in describing rebirth as a concrete physical process. A common stock phrase being used in many suttas:

...It's by reason of un-Dhamma conduct, dissonant conduct that some beings here, with the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell..
...It's by reason of this Dhamma conduct & harmonious conduct that some beings here, with the break-up of the body, after death, re-appear in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.
~~ MN 41 ~~

This doesn't answer the question.

Yes it does. It's exactly because the Buddha did teach rebirth in a literal sense that one should seek Enlightenment if one wants to put an end to Samsara. As already mentioned, a moment-to-moment interpretation might has its use, but it doesn't negate the fact that the Buddha did teach about literal rebirth.in many suttas.

The question (above) wasn't asking, "Did the Buddha teach about literal rebirth?" What the question asks is, "If (or, assuming that) some Buddhists don't believe in the literality of rebirth ... what then are other reasons for seeking enlightenment apart from the emancipation from Samsara?"

And at the same time, the OP also mentioned he's someone new to Buddhism and expressed confusion about the real meaning of rebirth, thus my emphasis on the literal meaning the Buddha taught throughout the suttas.

I posted on meta to ask about answers like this one: Moderating answers which don't answer the question?

Besides the other answers, rebirth and samsara can be interpreted from a psychological point of view.
The realms (or kingdoms) of samsara can be seen as mind states, and rebirth like the change of our lives.
Samsara, in short, represents the vicissitude of the human condition. Or in plain Buddhist, it shows us the impermanence of material and psychological states.
One day it is all good and happy, the next is not so good, than you feel OK, but something makes you upset, then you get a lot of work to forget those troubles and everything, then you start to feel better, but soon you start to feel stressed, and then you get a nice weekend, and so on. That's samsara, the ups and downs of life.
And about death and rebirth, you aren't the same person you were 10 years ago, and within 10 years you will be another person (if you keep on dying and rebirthing). In other words, the person of 10 years ago is dead, and now you are another one. And the person you are now, will be gone as you become another one.
One characteristic of Enlightenment is equanimity, that is, mental and emotional stability. Life will still have its ups and downs, but it won't be like a roller coaster, but more like a boat on a calm lake. And also, you won't rebirth anymore, in the sense that your personality and behavior will stabilize and you won't change from that.

The fundamental problem in most forms of Buddhism is suffering. If there is no afterlife, the problem of suffering can be solved with suicide. The historical Buddha's solution was tightly related to a realization about the nature of who we really are.
I am a secular Buddhist. I read other modern secular Buddhists and also think of solutions to the problem on my own.
Tom Pepper's Naturanlistic anatman, roughly says the the relevant unit of analysis is the collective consciousness. Individually, we don't exist, i.e. we lack certain desirable features of existence, such as a permanent, unchanging core. Collectively, we will live for a very long time, or at least until we render the planet uninhabitable. The goal is the liberation of this collective consciousness. Individual suicide will not help and killing everyone is impractical, to say nothing of the additional suffering it would create to even try.
Also, on my own, I've thought a lot about what the historical Buddha may have been like. He strikes me as a depressed young man who lived in a world where everyone around him said were he to die, he'd be right back in the miserable world again.  He didn't go forth into homelessness because he was happy and well adjusted at home. Normally, we are eager to believe we are immortal. We fear death more than anything, so much so that we will tell ourselves any lie to convince ourselves of our immortality. If you are depressed, you want the pain to stop. Not surprisingly, many depressed people take euthanasia into their own hands. For the Buddha, were he to literally believe in reincarnation, even this won't help. But after meditating, he realized no part of himself was eternal. And consequence is that reincarnation and all beliefs in immortality of the self are bunk. Liberation is liberation from the belief in reincarnation.  Further more, he realized that if he stop expecting things to last, he could gain some equanimity and peace and step out of the rat race. That state is nirvana, where you aren't exactly happy, but are in a comfortable state of anhedonia, something modern psychologists wouldn't think well of.  The Buddha originally was going to keep his mouth shut about this realization, since he didn't think anyone would get it. Within in one generation, no one got it anymore. Nirvana was heaven and enlightenment was just the path to a better heaven in the old system of reincarnation.  This process accelerated with arrival of Pure Land ideologies and the influence of Zoroastrianism in Mahayana and Hinduism in everything else.

As, Dzongsar Jamyang Khyenste Rinpoche, puts it

"If you don't believe in Rebirth, you are NOT a Buddhist; you are a
  materialist"

He recently (July 2015) gave a talk in Berkeley University on "Is there Buddhism without Rebith?" Answer is NO!. Here is a link to videos of the talk. Hope this helps.
Your understanding is correct - Buddhist seeks enlightenment in order to obtain emancipation from Samsara. There is NO other reason. All other reasons as invalid.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

Existence is universal only. There is no individual existence. Life originates in favourable conditions. We got our life from parents. This is similar to a candle lighting another candle.WHen the former candle dies out, the flame passed out by the former candle lives in the other candles. Life comes from life only. It is due to our clinging towards our mistaken individual existence and fear of annihilation, that we believe in rebirth. Actually we are something which do not exist at all. Rebirth is in a wider perspective, similar to the concept  of old leaves of a tree falling down and in its place new leaves appear. Here in the perspective of tree rebirths of leaves occur in a wider sense and not so in the case of individual leaves. The idea of rebirth is inducted to rely on the importance of karma and to prevent people from committing misdeeds. The individual existences die out but the world goes on. The World is like a plain paper in which different paintings appear and are removed one after the another.In the perspective of World we are nothing but negligible. So what more to say about our rebirth??

Consider the film Groundhog Day with Bill Murray, and his cycle of hedonism and depression as he lives the same week over and over again. Yet, you need not actually relive the same day to experience saṃsāra. For some unenlightened people, hell is a 9 to 5 job.

Hi Keldon. Welcome to Buddhism.SE! Our Welcome page has some helpful info on how to use the site.

Rebirth is not taken literally when you don't believe in an existence of an absolute (non-relative) reality. In a thinking system where you consider reality literally , rebirth should be taken literally.

“And if there is no rebirth, then the very goal of attaining nirvāṇa, understood as the cessation of rebirth, becomes almost perfectly meaningless. Or rather, nirvāṇa comes automatically to every living being that dies, regardless of how that being has lived.”

Hayes, Richard (1993). ‘Dharmakīrti on punarbhava’ In Egaku Maeda (ed), Studies in Original Buddhism and Mahayāna Buddhism. Kyōto: Nagata Bunshodo. Volume One, p. 111–30.

Are you saying you agree or disagree with the concept of literal rebirth? I could interpret that either way.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree. My stance on this is irrelevant. The point was to show what happens to traditional Buddhism sans rebirth.


text:
What is the practical effect for a Buddhist whose view is materialist?
Context
First, let me frame my question by establishing a shared understanding of what I mean by "view." Throughout all forms of Buddhism as far as I know, the Four Noble Truths are considered essential Buddhadharma. Included in the 4th Truth is the Eightfold Path, which Bhikkhu Bodhi (in Noble Eightfold Path) describes as follows:

The eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are not steps to be followed in sequence, one after another. They can be more aptly described as components rather than as steps.... With a certain degree of progress all eight factors can be present simultaneously, each supporting the others. However, until that point is reached, some sequence in the unfolding of the path is inevitable.

Right view has a very important role in that unfolding. One's very definition of "Noble" or "wisdom" reflects one's view, and in fact it seems that inquiry into and transformation of view is integral to how and where one travels as a sentient being. As Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in the same book:

Right view is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the other factors. It enables us to understand our starting point, our destination, and the successive landmarks to pass as practice advances. To attempt to engage in the practice without a foundation of right view is to risk getting lost in the futility of undirected movement. Doing so might be compared to wanting to drive someplace without consulting a roadmap or listening to the suggestions of an experienced driver. One might get into the car and start to drive, but rather than approaching closer to one’s destination, one is more likely to move farther away from it. To arrive at the desired place one has to have some idea of its general direction and of the roads leading to it. Analogous considerations apply to the practice of the path, which takes place in a framework of understanding established by right view.

Back in the full context of the Eightfold Path: among the three trainings, Right View and Right Intention make up the "training in the higher wisdom." This goes along with training in two other sets of Path elements. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

the moral discipline group [is] made up of right speech, right action, and right livelihood; [and] the concentration group [is] made up of right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration

To give an example of the role of View from an Indo-Tibetan tradition, Sachen Kunga Nyingpo had a vision in which Manjushri taught: "If there is grasping, you do not have the View.” This same teaching includes 3 specific attachments to relinquish leading up to this:

If you are attached to this life, you are not a true spiritual
practitioner.
If you are attached to samsara, you do not have
renunciation.
If you are attached to your own self-interest, you have
no bodhichitta.

Therefore, as is true throughout the Indo-Tibetan traditions I've encountered, the Right View must include a perspective that looks across countless lifetimes as well as beyond samsara; and that takes consciousness as somehow more primary than the physical. The ontological assumptions behind both "matter" and "mind" can certainly be tested, but by framing this in terms of View I want to focus on how one's convictions about the relationship between the physical world and consciousness (whatever one's ontological stance about them) shapes the way one interprets and practices Dharma.
Second, let me try to explicitly name my motivations in asking this question:
I ask partly as someone born into an environment of unexamined scientific materialsm, who has found greater sanity and happiness extending beyond its bounds as I've inquired into my assumptions. I hope to uncover and test more such assumptions within myself by asking others about their views, and thereby to keep getting more sane and happy for the sake of my own good and that of all sentient beings.
I also ask hoping to become more skillful when I encounter people who are both materialists and Buddhists. I've definitely gotten perturbed before (and probably will again) in reacting to materialist views that I consider unhelpful or already refuted. Beyond the afflictive emotion involved, it seems like such a critique on my part is "wrong speech" if it drives someone away from wanting to study and practice Buddhadharma.  Given the interdependent and holistic nature of the Eightfold Path, how could wrong speech possibly help to advance right view or anything else? Further, given the immense range of skillful means employed by Buddhas in training beings, why should I assume that a materialist stance (especially given the dominant cultural assumptions of modern civilization) might not fall within one or more of these skillful means, at least as a provisional adaptation to social mores? With a more complete understanding, I can still speak my own truth but do so in more compassionate and constructive ways.
Question
Hoping I've now given enough context to avoid coming across as rude or provocative, I'll present my question: if as part of your view you find that what you call physical reality (e.g., "matter & energy") encompasses and underpins what you call mind (e.g., "the space of mental events that includes qualia, thoughts, images and feelings"), how do you:

Express this view in your own words; and
Carry this view (or not) into how you travel the Eightfold Path? In particular, what are its implications for how you train in ethical discipline and/or concentration?

Great job framing this question. As someone who used to be a physics student with strong materialist views who then abandoned this view after realizing how limited our current physical theories are, I'm interested in hearing what people have to say about this.

Thank you, Samurdha! Although a layperson, I did benefit from reading about the 'known unknowns' of physics. It also helped me to learn that most of what I'd thought about physical reality based on grade school had already been refuted by current physics in ways that opened up a much more robust role for consciousness in our experience. Yet I understand that many people do not find such lines of inquiry convincing (or maybe even worthwhile); and would reject this hierarchy of views while still sincerely studying and practicing Buddhadharma.

I think that in order to truly appreciate such lines of reasoning people need to first be familiar with modern physical theories themselves. In addition to having at least a passing familiarity of at least special relativity and quantum mechanics, they must be willing to consider the philosophical implications of these theories. Even many professional physicists are reluctant to consider certain philosophical implications because the scientific orthodoxy is strongly biased a certain way and has a tendency to automatically label anyone who challenges certain fundamental assumptions as crazy.

I studied at least the mathematics of relativity and quantum mechanics at school, but I can't really guess what you mean by "materialism" (I studied maths not philosophy). I also can't guess why you're calling the "people you encounter" materialists, whether they call themselves materialists, and what they mean when or if they say "materialist". And so I for example can't easily answer this question. I suggest you talk about this with the next "materialists" you encounter: try to ask them these questions.

If you get the opportunity again in person, maybe listen more than you talk, concentrate on understanding what they say (if possible and if you even want to) instead of "speaking your own truth but in more compassionate and constructive ways" ... because two thirds of this question is explaining your view (which isn't meant to be the subject of the question) not theirs (which is), and apparently accuses them of "wrong speech" (when you wrote, "how could wrong speech possibly help to advance right view or anything else?") i.e. this might be a preconceived argument, not a sincere question.

"wrong speech" is in reference to myself in responding to such views (which I am trying to improve upon by better understanding).  'Materialist" is in reference to any view that considers matter (or matter-and-energy) the source of mind. I explained my view extensively to try to clarify, in an area where people usually talk past each other Sorry if it came over as preconceived but I was trying to be clear. Edited to clarify the speech point.

It seems to me all answers here are likely to be equally good and valid, no?

@ChrisW Materialism is a known school of philosophy which claims that everything is physical, meaning everything is subject to the rules of nature.  It declares that there is nothing which is fundamentally mental... all things which appear mental are an illusion.

This is too tangential for me to simply make it an answer, but one of the things I have found most helpful for exploring any belief system which focuses on consciousness is to remember the limits of how we got to our materialistic beliefs.  If yours are like mine, they arise because we live in a world of science.  What I have found effective for making sense of these conflicts is to remember that science has its limits, particularly in psychology.  If an asymptotically small amount of what makes your decisions is pure consciousness, it can be asymptotically hard for science to prove it is only

matter.  Once it is possible (not necessarily proven) that there could be a shred of pure consciousness not bound by matter, it makes it easier to study such systems.  In particular, I have had great success finding that such systems provide "good results" for a material individual with no pure consciousness, while providing the potential for unbounded good results if indeed all that matters is pure consciousness.

I cannot comprehend how someone could be a materialist and a Buddhist so have no idea how to answer the question. If I met someone with these views I would assume they haven't given the issues much thought. If a person cannot work out that materialism is logically absurd the they'll struggle with the intellectual demands of Buddhist philosophy and are probably best burning their books and sticking to Zen.

According to Theravada Buddhism, Right view (Samma Ditti) should eliminate both extreme ideologies( materialistic -"Everything exists" view and "Everything doesn't exist"). This is very clear per most of the suttas. For example. pls refer to Kaccayanagotta Sutta. Also if you could read Bhikku K Nanananda's Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought that'd be helpful to clear your right view.

Hi Sajeewa and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

"A Buddhist whose view is materialist" can only mean someone who has just taken refuge in the triple gem, but has no idea what the Buddha taught on the subject matter. If he repudiates the teachings of the Buddha knowingly, the refuge is broken and he is no longer a Buddhist.
Ajita Kesakambali was a well known materialist during the time of the Buddha. He argued that there is no such thing as alms or sacrifice or offering. There is neither fruit nor result of good or evil deeds...A human being is built up of four elements. When he dies the earthly in him returns and relapses to the earth, the fluid to the water, the heat to the fire, the wind to the air, and his faculties pass into space.
Materialism falls under ucchedavada. It is one of the 2 misbeliefs that blocks the noble eightfold path. The other one being the belief of an eternal soul. Those who believe in an eternal soul can still get into heavenly realms. But those who are with materialistic views are said to be destined for hells.

Thank you for these points. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism teaches very similarly  and I find this approach to right view is compelling and helpful. But even so, maybe someone's view (especially if held in a good-hearted spirit of inquiry) can be materialist [as was mine when I was younger, and probably still is at some levels given lifelong influences]; while their practice advances based on skillful training in ethics and concentration? That's what I'm trying to understand, anyway - the perspective of practitioners who don't share my view, or even my view about view :  ) . Thanks again.

I posted on meta to ask about answers like this one: Moderating answers which don't answer the question?

@ChrisW first 2 paragraphs answer the 1st question and the third answers the 2nd :)

I think the question is looking for answers (i.e. an explanation of their own view in their own words) from people who identify themselves as materialists.

Answered under the question you posted in meta

and yet "There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions... etc. etc. " is a mere "right view with effluents (asava)".

Wrong view is words. What is in your experience, what you are focusing on within your experience moment by moment is right view. Really no opinion or laws are right view. They are agreements, assumptions and premade arguments. They can point to what is right view but they aren't right view.

If i can be permitted to answer this from my own personal experience and feelings about this - I think for a practitioner in the west materialism is a difficult view to work with. For many of us a materialist view is what we have been brought up with and it is a very dominant (the dominant?) paradigm in the west. We are fishes swimming in the waters of materialism and fishes don't see the water and many of us don't question our materialist assumptions.
I've had a few conversations with order members in my sangha about materialism. While no-one in my sangha will stop you practicing if you are an unreconstructed materialist it is ultimately a view like all the other views and like all views it needs to be ultimately transcended. For many of us (for me anyway) we can see materialism as the unquestioned truth but then other times the dominant world view (christianity, paganism etc...) would also have been the unquestioned truth and in 500 years time there will be another unquestioned truth. We are not living at the end of history where the answer is a materialist western liberal democracy - but at times it feels like that how things are presented in our culture.
As I'm sure you can tell it's a struggle for me but your materialist views are something to work with. Right now I feel things are just a lot more unknowable than I appreciated for most of my life. But then the unknowable nature of reality is surely just a view of itself. The work continues!!

I came from a background in Stoicism. While there are many differences, I have found it very similar to what might be considered a materialist view of Buddhism. Attachment is referred to as passion, and happiness is said to come from being virtuous. The Four Noble Truths become (paraphrasing Epictetus):

Somethings things are in our control, others not. Things we control: our actions, thoughts, words, intentions. Things we don't control: everything else.
Focusing our efforts on things we don't control is unproductive and leads to suffering.
Only minding what is in our control ends suffering (leading to nirvana).
Minding what is in our control is the domain of ethics and virtue.

Aristotle discuses virtue in the Nicomachean Ethics. He defines ethics as doing what a human does well. The same way a calculator that evaluates 2+2 as 4 is a good computer, a human that acts right is a good human. He defines a virtue as the middle path between two vices. Leading to the stoic version of the Noble Eightfold Path, the cardinal virtues:

Prudence: Right view, Right intention are the natural extension of a sound mind.
Justice: Right speech, Right action, Right livelihood.
Temperance: Right mindfulness, Right concentration.
Courage: Right effort.

Roughly, prudence is the "higher wisdom", justice is the "moral discipline group", courage and temperance are the "concentration group".
So taking the assumption that ethics and logic are the same thing, we can look at the relationship of physicality and the consciousness underpinning our path. Personally, as a materialist, I look at this as the relationship between causality and matter - or math and physics. Some things are evidently true, others are necessarily true. The latter is Formal Ethics. Harry Gensler has book on it where he shows that the golden rule is formally true in all cases. A materialist avoids stealing because it is nonsensical to do this. "Bad" actions rightly lead to their consequences. This is true regardless of what the physical specifics are: what life you live, how you live it (samsara), what you hope to gain... Personally, I see consciousness as the causal relation of matter, like calculation (the Curry-Howard Isomorphism). By this I don't mean that consciousness is a property of matter per se, but that it is inextricably linked and emerges with it, like the internal language in a cartesian closed category.
But whatever your view of consciousness is, you can see how the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path could be seen as a necessary truth without mentioning consciousness at all.
As for #2, Harry Gensler's Formal Ethics is good reading. Practical training in ethics comes down to the Law of Universality (fair should be consistently fair in all cases, not just when it's convenient). Practical training in concentration is aided by continence (Smoking kills; I don't care for dying; Therefore I won't smoke) and ends-means (If I want to stop smoking I should actually do the work of quitting).
Honestly though, I don't think most scientists are strictly atheists or materialists. The nice thing about framing the issue this way is that it works with or without a duality of consciousness or a god. So you can be Buddhist, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Nihilist, etc. and these principles still apply just as well.
I realize this answer strays a bit from Buddhism proper. I mean only to shed a different light on the subject.

If you "don't mean that consciousness is a property of matter per se", do you consider this a "materialist" view?

Can you clarify why "a materialist avoids stealing because it is nonsensical to do this"? What's nonsensical about it, why do you call it nonsensical?

How can the Four Noble Truths "be seen as a necessary truth without mentioning consciousness at all": does the first noble truth for example imply sentience, some consciousness of suffering?

I'm with Chris on this. Stoics seem to believe what they like, but a materialist Buddhist is like a married bachelor.

Well,you have missed a valuable teaching so let me provide it to you briefly..

What makes someone  a "Buddhist" ?

A Buddhist is a one who had accepted Triple gems as his only path and refuge.
He has absolute confidence in Lord Buddha's words.But this confidence is not  a blind one,He has learnt and applied the teachings to his personal life and understood the truthfulness of them by himself.He follows every word of Lord Buddha because he has seen it by himself that thee is no other path.He understand that his ability to fathom something is far less from a lord Buddha so when he find some things that he has never even dreamed of in "Dhamma" he believes it because of the proofs he had previously about the practicality of Lord Buddha's teachings.He is sure of those things because even if he did not see those amazing things by himself he has his trust in Lord Buddha.
So what makes a real Buddhist?
Lord Buddha said this about it.....

He should believe in lower and higher realms and about the birth without parents (Basicly the equalants
of Hell and Heaven)
But please understand this is not a foolish eternal heaven or hell
like ones in other religions.These words are mostly lost in
translation to English so checkout these links to learn about lower
and higher realms.

Higher Realms
Lower Realms

He should believe In Karma
He should believe that some people are Special,that there are people who
deserve respect and care from others (Parents,Elderly,monks)
He should have Shraddha (Unshakable trust in lord Triple gems)
But a
trust built upon realization,not a one built on faith )
He should Take the "Triple Gems" as his only refuge

This would look a bit rude what i am about to say,but as we are advised in Buddhism a good friend is a one who correct another for his own good.
Here is the thing my friend,Lord Buddha used to slam some beliefs that existed in his own age,One of which is materialism.So please try to understand if you believe in materialism you are not a part of any form of Buddhism
Because materialism is against everything Buddhism stands for.Before being a materialist please understand that to explain everything in science is still extremely impossible so how can you believe in a  half-made belief?
I'm afraid you are going to have to choose between Buddhism and materialism,it is that simple.
If you have any question we all are happy to help because as to Buddhism materialists are not bound to a good place in the lives to come.Because they generate an unusual karma (Lord Buddha said that universe expands and shrinks ,so when the time is right the universe as we know it meets it's end but people with views like materialism will have births in planets with such harsh conditions even in this chaos those planets will not be destroyed and without any hope of a comfort they will have to suffer for eons until the new universe is born.).If you have any question regarding this question please ask.

The term "materialist" appears to not exist in the Pali suttas. Therefore, this question appears to be more non-sense.


text:
Will I know when it's time to meditate longer?
When I first started meditating I was very eager to progress. I started with five minutes and added another five with every week. I probably made it to 30 minutes or something when I just quit altogether. It was all quantity-over-quality.
Towards the end there I lost a lot of will and motivation to keep going, I just wanted to do other things. I got bored and I let my mind wander and distract me, not making much effort in bringing the attention back to the stomach. Meditation became a chore and the only reason I kept going was because I didn't want to lose the routine, and also I hoped it was perhaps just a phase or something.
In any case, to make a short story long, I've started meditating again now, 10 minutes at a time and since I have a cold and am tired all day as a result I don't become so restless.
But when can I start adding more time? Will I "feel" it, or is it a question of discipline?
Is it better to meditate poorly than not at all?
If I add time, and find that I get really bored, is it because I'm doing it wrong or is it simply the nature of the mind?

This answer is based in the practice of insight meditation.

You will know when to begin adding more time to your sitting practice. In the beginning quality is much more important than quantity when it comes to meditation. What does quality mean when it comes to meditation?
Quality means to make an effort to keep the mind in the present moment, so that one can observe the arising and ceasing of phenomena without the mind following after them or running away from them and getting lost.
By keeping the mind in the present moment one ties the monkey down. The mind is like a monkey jumping from branch to branch. By keeping the mind in the present moment is like taking the monkey in the hand and walking him to another area, an area that has only one tree. Now the monkey cannot jump anywhere.
In samsara, conditioned reality, the mind can never be satisfied with anything because all objects are impermanent meaning they cannot bring any lasting and permanent happiness to the mind. So the mind jumps from object to object but everytime it's left with suffering. The hardest thing in the world is actually to do nothing. So don't be too hard on yourself. It's the nature of mind to wander.
The tibetan buddhists have a saying that goes like this: "If the Mind wanders a Thousand times, bring it back a Thousand times".
Step by step we train the mind so that it will not stray from the present moment. It's usually a long process so don't get stressed about it. You might also not see any apparent changes at first but everytime you meditate you are changing something. You are untying the knots, slowly. Don't be fooled by not seeing any changes from day to day or even from week to week. There are changes happening but in the beginning they are subtle.
Results come not from how long one sits but from consistency, diligency and the ability to keep the mind in the present moment. It's like learning to play football. If one only plays once a week one will not improve that fast. If one practices let's say 1 hour every day then the benefits will be more solid and apparent. So to become good at any skill in life, one has to practice consistently.
Don't worry if you sit 30 minutes or 10 minutes everyday, just try to make an effort to do a little bit of meditation every day. Then naturally you will increase your physical and mental stamina and then you can begin to increase your sitting time.

This answer brought to you by samatha (calm meditation).  ;)
We've all heard this metaphor a thousand times.  A glass full of muddy water will only settle out once movement is stopped and then only after the passage of some time.  There is no way of getting it to settle faster.   Any effort made is just going to disturb the water and throw the dirt particles back into a tumble.

When you try to stop activity to achieve passivity your very effort fills you with activity.
Seng-T'san from the Hsin Hsin Ming

It's a bad idea to start labeling your sessions as good meditation and bad meditation.  Every sit accomplishes something.  The only bad meditation is no meditation.  In fact, those sits where your legs hurt and your mind kicking around like a bull in a china shop are far more important initially than those sits where your mind is collected and the breath is easily followed.  Those are the times when learning is taking place.  Those are the extra five lbs. on the barbell or the two extra reps that end up making you stronger.  The restlessness that you are experiencing is actually something to be celebrated!  That's your small mind going into panic mode.  You are doing something it doesn't like, and like a cornered animal, it's showing it's teeth trying to get you to stop.  It's very important that you don't let it scare you away.  Set a time - a reasonable time...maybe 15 minutes now - and commit yourself to staying absolutely still on the cushion for that duration.  If you can't focus your mind, that's OK.  Just remain still.  Stillness in your body will eventually translate to stillness in the mind.  When you can do that, add a minute or so like you were doing.
Obviously, you can overdo things.  It would make no sense at this point for you to start sitting for two hours.  Establish a habit first and then build from there.  If you can find a meditation group, start sitting with them.  Just like it's easier to exercise with another person, it is far easier to sit for lengths of time when you are around other people.
Meditation is not jhana during every sit.  Not for a very, very long time anyway.  Meditation is frustration.  Meditation is failure.  But every time you push past that frustration and failure, meditation is growth.