Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Life after life
Quandarius
Explorer
Hello: I don't know whether the category I have chosen is appropriate for this subject, but I see no more appropriate one, so it can stay here, as far as I am concerned.
What follows may seem clumsily expressed. However, it seems to me that there is something in it that others may want to ponder.
From various sources, I have received an impression that at death, the conscious aspects of the mind are lost. Merely intellectual development applied only to the life that has just ended. A Tibetan Llama, in a video I saw, was the last person that seemed to support this view. Furthermore, it seemed that he was asserting that, no matter what one may do with one's life, only things that affect the subtle mind are taken into the after-death state. For example, if I understand this Llama aright, one might study mathematics all one's life. Nevertheless, this ability will not be carried over into any next human life, because all those mental abilities will be forgotten (and, maybe, lost) at death.
To me, this is difficult to come to terms with. I understand that one cannot demand of the universe, of God, or any other power, how things ought to be. If only things that affect the citta (the subtle mind) are retained, it is possible that only aspects of moral character etc. are carried from one life to another. If that is the case, and if Einstein had happened to be a violent and greedy man, what would be carried over, when it comes into contact with a human brain and body in the next life, might have a very unfortunate life. For example, that life might be one of deprivation and oppression (to compensate for the hypothetical greed and violence of the last life) and even stupidity of mind.
Yet, things that I also have read would seem to indicate otherwise. For example, I recall reading a book called: Yesterday's Children, in which a young English woman remembers flashes (and more) of a fairly recent former life in Ireland. Eventually, through doing research and making enquiries, she came to be reunited with the children (her past family) that, through dying early in the last life, she had been forced to abandon. It is a very moving story, and I don't believe that any reasonable person could doubt that, in this book, she is telling the truth (the ISBN number is:0-7499-1246-4. Piatkus Books, 1993).
There have also been cases where children, at almost unbelievably young ages, has learned several languages, been a precocious mathematical or musician etc. There are many cases of this kind of thing on record. One is compelled to ask: how did these children get their talents? If they were carried forward from earlier lives, this would seem to argue that mental traits, as well as moral development, remain with the deceased being, and manifest in later lives.
Despite the acute — and not conventionally-orientated — analysis, by Buddhists, of the nature of beings, I am trying to make a case for some kind of "person" (as the ordinary human being would see it) surviving death, not just a collection of moral (or immoral) traits.
Has anyone anything to contribute to this subject? If so, I should be very glad to hear what you have to say. Also, has anyone else had an impression, from what they have read or heard, that is similar to the impression I have received?
What follows may seem clumsily expressed. However, it seems to me that there is something in it that others may want to ponder.
From various sources, I have received an impression that at death, the conscious aspects of the mind are lost. Merely intellectual development applied only to the life that has just ended. A Tibetan Llama, in a video I saw, was the last person that seemed to support this view. Furthermore, it seemed that he was asserting that, no matter what one may do with one's life, only things that affect the subtle mind are taken into the after-death state. For example, if I understand this Llama aright, one might study mathematics all one's life. Nevertheless, this ability will not be carried over into any next human life, because all those mental abilities will be forgotten (and, maybe, lost) at death.
To me, this is difficult to come to terms with. I understand that one cannot demand of the universe, of God, or any other power, how things ought to be. If only things that affect the citta (the subtle mind) are retained, it is possible that only aspects of moral character etc. are carried from one life to another. If that is the case, and if Einstein had happened to be a violent and greedy man, what would be carried over, when it comes into contact with a human brain and body in the next life, might have a very unfortunate life. For example, that life might be one of deprivation and oppression (to compensate for the hypothetical greed and violence of the last life) and even stupidity of mind.
Yet, things that I also have read would seem to indicate otherwise. For example, I recall reading a book called: Yesterday's Children, in which a young English woman remembers flashes (and more) of a fairly recent former life in Ireland. Eventually, through doing research and making enquiries, she came to be reunited with the children (her past family) that, through dying early in the last life, she had been forced to abandon. It is a very moving story, and I don't believe that any reasonable person could doubt that, in this book, she is telling the truth (the ISBN number is:0-7499-1246-4. Piatkus Books, 1993).
There have also been cases where children, at almost unbelievably young ages, has learned several languages, been a precocious mathematical or musician etc. There are many cases of this kind of thing on record. One is compelled to ask: how did these children get their talents? If they were carried forward from earlier lives, this would seem to argue that mental traits, as well as moral development, remain with the deceased being, and manifest in later lives.
Despite the acute — and not conventionally-orientated — analysis, by Buddhists, of the nature of beings, I am trying to make a case for some kind of "person" (as the ordinary human being would see it) surviving death, not just a collection of moral (or immoral) traits.
Has anyone anything to contribute to this subject? If so, I should be very glad to hear what you have to say. Also, has anyone else had an impression, from what they have read or heard, that is similar to the impression I have received?
0
Comments
Child prodigies are a mystery, but some of the more exceptional cases really make you wonder. There was a spectacular case in Oakland, CA, decades ago, of a little African American girl who was a pro at pool. She was just 3 years old, they outfitted her with her own pool cue, and she'd clean up the table like a pro. What an odd talent to bring into this life, no? Things like that are hard to explain without a belief in rebirth.
The best thing is to simply NOT try to explain them.
Where does it get you, other than entrenched in more questioning and confusion?
I think there's a contradiction between "standard explanations" and actual practice, at least in Tibetan Buddhism. I think what we're seeing is the influence of traditional pre-Buddhist beliefs on Buddhist teachings. And that phenomenon of folk beliefs influencing Buddhist practice and beliefs is not at all uncommon across the Buddhist world.
So does the notion of the Bardo come from Bon? As it seems what you're saying is that original Buddhism has no kind of transmigration, ie. the Theravada notion of one candle lighting another, but TB has some notion of some entity that moves from life to life?
It's hard to see exactly what goes across lives and what doesn't. But it's also one of the things the Buddha said not ponder upon, at least if you see it as a result of karma, which I do. That means that knowing these things are not essential for us to practice the path.
However, what is interesting to focus on is our attachments to intellect/ideas.
With metta,
Sabre
If you want to believe in reincarnation of some sort, it's best left as a matter of faith. No story from anyone or any researcher, in spite of what true believers say, point to anything more likely than our ability to use fuzzy thinking to fool ourselves. We want it to be true, so we look for evidence for it. If you were a Christian, you'd find stories just as compelling about people with visions of Heaven. I think that's a good start. Here's the question I start with. Why are you looking to outside authorities for evidence of personal reincarnation, when you have yourself. If reincarnation is the rule, then you are the reincarnation of multiple lives. Even if, at the most, you manage to find a few fuzzy memories of a previous life, are you that person from back then? Or are you a unique person in this life? What is it that makes a person?
What was your original face before you were born?
Death anxiety (thanatophobia) is defined as a feeling of dread, apprehension or solicitude (anxiety) when one thinks of the process of dying, or ceasing to be or what happens after death. Death is defined as the state of non-being, the termination of biological life
A Biography" by Donald Lopez?
You can find an interview in regard to it here:
http://rorotoko.com/interview/20110511_donald_lopez_on_tibetan_book_of_dead_biography/
It's certainly not a case of him having made up any teachings to make people feel less anxious, but that clinging to such teachings certainly has that as an end result.
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.
"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both ways.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.
"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now.'" (AN 3.65)
Oh, Jenny Cockell. In fact, a reasonable person should doubt it, because some very reasonable people took a close look at the story and found it the usual mix of shoehorning vague clues into common elements and calling it a match. ... Just do a quick google and you'll find a few skeptical websites that cover it in detail.
Thanks for your comments, also this information, Cinorjer. It's the most obvious thing to do, yet I did not think of looking up Jenny Cockell on Google! I will do that. Thanks, also, to everyone else that put their oar in. I take note of it all.
And by the way, I note that I spelt lama incorrectly. Llamas are not Tibetan — they are South American, aren't they??
I'll leave it to you to try to interpret the above passage, I'm not sure it makes any more sense but the elements in Buddhism shouldn't be taken literally.
The Ven. Shravasti Dhammika is of the opinion that the Buddha was attempting to give a naturalistic explanation for such phenomena, but there's nothing "naturalistic" about the other circumstances mentioned, including the belief that humans could also develop psychic powers to cause earthquakes --- it just doesn't pass the litmus test of critical thinking.
With that said, I believe my argument above still stands when compared to the over-all circumstances that were believed to cause earthquakes, especially since metaphors can also be erroneous, irrelevant, deceptive, and misleading.
The Earth element (pa.thavi dhaatu) = solidity
The Water element (aapo dhaatu) = adhesion
The Fire element (tejo dhaatu) = heat
The Wind element (vaayo dhaatu) = motion
So replacing "wind" with the activity of "motion", and this motion stirs up "adhesion", one could say that this is what causes earthquakes. Is there a particular scripture that describes that humans can cause earthquakes via psychic powers? I don't recall seeing that but I certainly have not read all of them.
I also have to disagree with the notion of certain 'mystical' elements of Buddhism not being a naturalistic explanation. Ideas such as siddhis, karma, rebirth are naturalistic explanations what they aren't is physicalistic. The modern version of naturalistic doesn't include such things as they aren't proven scientifically so I'm not saying you have to believe them but they are explained as operating according to regular laws and not some divine intention.
Critical thinking has it's limitations.
So, like others said, until I die I won't know for sure. I'll just keep living life until I get there.
In other words it's poor apologetics, the worse kind of example of dialectical parlance.
For example, let's return to the OP subject of question --- I neither accept nor deny the doctrine of rebirth because it's of no consequence if one's practice is in the present moment, the here and now. I could waste my time and practice by metaphorically stating that rebirth exists in the cycle of my breath, with each one, but that too would be of no consequence.
aura, one of our old (ex) members spoke of it strongly and I have no reason to doubt what she told us: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/comment/247801#Comment_247801
Well wishes,
Abu
Although you're very correct in that not every decision made through critical thinking ends up being the right decision, can we say the same when critical thought is not applied?
:rolleyes:
I've never seen an analysis devoid of opinion.
Not only has the teaching on rebirth a value for those who would see some justice in this world, it also has a pragmatic application. When teaching those who took rebirth for granted, Buddha strengthened their belief, but with others who were sceptical and asked questions, instead of asking them to accept rebirth as true, Buddha employed a ‘wager argument’. In this way he brought into focus the value of this teaching by stressing its practical benefits, here and now.
Clarification of the issue of rebirth may be done in the words of a famous Buddhist simile from the questions asked by King Milinda (Menander in Greek) of the sage Nagasena:
Rebirth is by the latter compared to the changes which a single jug of milk may undergo. To begin with there is just milk, this changes to curds, these to butter, from butter comes ghee and from ghee, the skim of ghee, and such processes may develop one from another, infinitely. Each stage is compared to one birth and all the time from the stage of being milk until it becomes ghee-skim, there is no underlying entity which actually goes unchanged—there are here only processes at work, unstable processes in the process of further change. The position of man, if he had but a little humility to see it, is the same: processes constantly change, react and change.
From these explanations we can see that the issue of rebirth is not related with being a Buddhist. This is further confirmed by Buddha’s teaching on five qualities of a good Buddhist. To be a good Buddhist lay disciple, Buddha said, one should be: 1) Endowed with faith (arising from wisdom). 2) Have good conduct (keep the precepts). 3) Not to be superstitious but believing in deeds (karma). 4) Not to seek for the gift-worthy outside of the Buddha’s teaching (to bring Buddha’s teachings into practice), and 5) To do his first service in a Buddhist cause (to endeavour adhering to Buddhism).
Therefore, if anyone follows these virtues one can be regarded as a good Buddhist without believing in rebirth. However, as a Buddhist essentially one must believe in the theory of karma. Following is a verse the simplifying the theory of karma which appears in the Buddhist texts:
According to the seed that is sown,
So is the fruit ye reap therefrom.
The doer of good will gather good,
The doer of evil, evil reaps.
Sown is the seed and planted well;
Thous shalt enjoy the fruit thereof.
You can read the complete article here:
http://www.lumbini.org.uk/nov_1998_4.html