PadmaVonSamba wrote:My point is that what describes human birth in Sukhavati is not a meat & bones body,but the still-conditioned arising, the projection of mind, of the experience of being human, hearing, seeing, and so forth, the same way as it is experienced here and now,because the causes for that result to occur have not been severed.
Devas and asuras are also held to be anthropomorphic, but we do not term them human births.
In that case, the question--and the point of disagreement-- becomes one of defining the term "human".
Devas and asuras, and pretas too, are also held to be "humanoid" as well, with arms and legs, and,
afflictions that we humans can 'relate' to.
What then, is the defining characteristic, from a buddhist understanding, or,
since you mention other beings in other realms of samasara, of a human,
of of beings in the human realm?
My understanding is that it is the suffering of change
a constant sense of dissatisfaction,
wanting things to change when they do not change,
wanting things to stay the same when they start to change.
But it is also this very thing that gives humans
the greatest opportunity for dharma understanding and practice.
We are not constantly
hungry and thirsty, as is preta,
jealous, as is an asura,
not constantly feeling tortured, as a hell-being.
Likewise, we cannot say that being born from a womb is a specifically human trait.
it is common among all mammals (most of whom are in the animal realm)
So, i think the real question is not so much a point of any real disagreement
over whether one is born as a human or not in Sukhavati,
but rather, what defining characteristic of "human"
would make saying "born as a human in Sukhavati"
either an accurate, or else inaccurate phrase.
For that matter, is "born" or "reborn" really even the right terms?