by Tang Huyen
Whether rebirth is factually true or not, it is not a matter of concern to the Buddhist cultivator, who would rather shed past and future and pay attention to what happens in the present.
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception and mind, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos." AN, IV.45; SN, 2, 36.
"The saintly disciple who well cognises this dependent arising and these dependently arisen things as they are by correct wisdom, does not pursue the prior limit saying, 'What was I in the past? Or, did I not exist in the past? Who was I in the past? How was I in the past?' He does not pursue the posterior limit saying, 'What shall I be in the future? Or, shall I not exist in the future? Who shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future?' He will not doubt internally, 'What is this? How is this? Who are we? Who shall we be? From where does this being come? Where will it go after dying from here?' Whatever common worldly views which recluses and brahmans attach to (yāni tāny ekatyānāṃ śramaṇa-brāhmaṇānāṃ pṛthal-loke dṛṣṭi-gatāni), to wit: views (dṛṣṭi-gatāni) tied to theory of self (ātma-vāda), views tied to theory of being (sattva-vāda), views tied to theory of living being (jīva-vāda), views tied to theory of rites and rituals to bring good luck (kotūhala-maṅgala-vāda) — all these views are at this time cut, understood, cut down at the root, made like the stump of a palm tree, made something which has ceased to be, never to grow again in the future."
SA, 296, 84b–c; Nidāna-saṃyukta, 150–152; MN, I, 264–265 (38); Zitate, 184 (partially); the Śālistamba-sūtra in Louis de la Vallée Poussin, Théorie des douze causes, 88–90.
When a practitioner cuts without remainder all views about the prior limit (i.e., related to the beginning of the world and to his past lives), cuts without remainder all views about the posterior limit (i.e., related to the end of the world and to his future lives), he becomes awakened. SA, 60, 15c. The Pāli equivalents are in MN, II, 233 (102); DN, I, 12–29 (1); DN, III, 137 (29); and the Sanskrit fragments are in Turfanfunde, IV, 156–157.
The closest Pāli to our present passage is SN, III, 45–46 (22, 46): "Thus seeing it as it is with correct wisdom, the views about the prior limit do not become; the views about the prior limit not being, the views about the posterior limit do not become; the views about the posterior limit not being, obstinate misconstruing does not become; obstinate misconstruing not being, his mind turns away from form, feeling, notion, volitional compositions, consciousness, and is liberated from the cankers by not grasping." (Evaṃ etaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato pubbantānudiṭṭhiyo na honti, pubbantānudiṭṭhinaṃ asati aparantānudiṭṭhiyo na honti, aparantānudiṭṭhinaṃ asati thāmaso paramāso na hoti, thāmase paramāse asati rūpasmiṃ vedanāya saññāya saṅkhāresu viññāṇasmiṃ cittaṃ virajjati vimuccati anupādāya āsavehi.)
"But, Kaccāna, let the past be, let the future be (tiṭṭhatu pubbanto tiṭṭhatu aparanto, literally: let the prior limit be, let the posterior limit be). Let there come an intelligent man, guileless, honest, straight, and I instruct him — if he follows my instruction, he will before long know by himself, see by himself." MN, II, 44 (80); MA, 209, 787b–c.
The above Pāli tiṭṭhatu pubbanto tiṭṭhatu aparanto (literally: let the prior limit be, let the posterior limit be) can also be understood as: put down the past, put down the future, drop the past, drop the future, leave them alone, don't touch them. The Buddhist path is unloading, whereas all concerns about the past and future are loading. So to put down all those extraneous concerns and to concentrate on meditation is how views, frameworks, or whatever else can be set aside temporarily — until they can be set aside definitively, with no remainder, at arhatship.
The Buddhist ideal is to leave the past and the future to themselves and live strictly in the present instead. The Buddha is told of the monk Sthāviraka who "dwells alone" (eka-vihārī), has him called up and tells him: "When the past is cut, the future is let go of, and lust and passion (chanda-rāga) for present existential states (atta-bhāva-paṭilābha) are well controlled, then the dwelling alone is perfect in details." SN, II, 283 (21, 10); SA, 1071, 278.
Whether rebirth is factually true or not, it is not a matter of concern to the Buddhist cultivator, who would rather shed past and future and pay attention to what happens in the present.
Colophon
Posted to talk.religion.buddhism on March 6, 2004. Author: Tang Huyen (Laughing Buddha, Inc.). Message-ID: <[email protected]>.
Tang Huyen was a scholar of Buddhist studies with deep command of Pāli, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan sources. Posting to talk.religion.buddhism and related groups from 2003 to 2008, he was among the most rigorous analytical voices in the English-language Buddhist Usenet world. This post responds to a challenge about rebirth doctrine with a sustained anthology of canonical proof-texts across Pāli, Chinese, and Sanskrit sources — demonstrating that the Buddha's explicit instruction was to cut without remainder all views about past and future lives, and to live strictly in the present.
Note: Diacritical marks have been restored from the original post's encoding where clearly determinable from context. Minor corrections to Roman transliteration have been made silently.
Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.
🌲