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.
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
I think these/those types of recurring threads are healthy, so long as they are open. The people who have trouble with them are the people who are approaching it as a closed subject... and rebirth, especially, can never be (honestly) a closed subject. It may be closed that some texts say this or say that, but not whether it's true or not. Those for whom the subject is closed will be vexed if their view is not accepted by others.
Myself, I'm always looking for new insights. If nothing else, I can work on my Dharma Combat skills while learning not to get angry because someone disagrees with me...
It's easier 4 me to get mad when someone insults me. Disagrees? Goes with the territory. In the real world for everyone who can understand one's meaning, there's ten who either cannot or Will Not.
For me, I think being attached to either view is probably not dharmic. I don't think this reincarnation/rebirth stuff should be a qualifying belief for either orthodoxy or heterodoxy. If there verily were an Orthodoxy, then those who do not subscribe to it would be heretics. Now, in the history of the West, heresy was a sin against the Holy Ghost, but schism was a Sin against Charity. But I thought The Lord Buddha admonished his followers not to argue amongst themselves --especially about metaphysics.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited November 2014
@SpinyNorman said:
One of the things I found interesting in Ajahn Brahm's talk was how the assumption of future rebirth can put our current life into a quite different perspective - maybe easier to cope with the dukkha, maybe less clinging to our current existence.
-----------------------------------------------------
(Pardon that, my quoting feature is whack.)
That could be but to me it sounds dangerously close to the carrot-on-the-stick morality scenario. Not that it's a bad thing...
Future lives for this temporary self doesn't really make sense to me because I wont really be there (at least I don't think I will be) so a future life is the same as any other being alive right now. Now that I think about it, my future rebirth is as important to me as your past rebirth but neither are as important as what we are doing right now. We are in this thing together and so compassion and helping each other grow could do a lot in coping with our dukkha and the clinging that comes with believing it's all about the current self.
Definitely not a criticism of rebirth, just a non-linear view (as such a concept can allow).
Maybe the self should not be abandoned but rather expanded to include all sentient beings... Or we could walk the middle way and treat each other as if they are our future self. They just may be...
As for banning controversial Buddhist topics on a non-sectarian Buddhist forum, wouldn't it be more prudent to make a category for these topics with a warning? I don't mean a "Warning Trolls Ahead" banner but something like "These threads may be seen as controversial so please be advised that anything you post may be challenged or elaborated on. Before responding please take a moment to see if you can handle your view being scrutinised respectfully without responding in anger or cruelty. Don't share what you are afraid to let go of and be mindful of Right speech. This is a Buddhist forum after all."
Maybe we just need to lighten up and quit taking our selves so seriously?
It's a harmless discussion and we are hardly internet thugs.
3
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited November 2014
@ourself Agree, about treating future rebirths no differently than "anyone else". That's the most sensible thing I've ever heard about the subject, because nothing of what we think constitutes "who we are" is reborn. Only what's the same between all of us is reborn, and that's not a self, it's not an "I".
Our differences make us unique, but it's the sameness that binds us all together.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited November 2014
@Toraldris, "Our differences make us unique, but it's the sameness that binds us all together."
True and if you think about it (paradoxically enough) being unique is also just another thing we all have in common. Makes for a nice and perhaps infinite amount of perspectives.
If two heads are better than one, we have hit the motherload... Now if we could only get our act together.
Maybe we just need to lighten up and quit taking our selves so seriously? @ourself
When people believe in rebirth I usually don’t mind that a bit. It’s mostly when someone says (like Ajahn Brahm here) that he knows it for a fact, that there is evidence for rebirth, that I get triggered.
@SpinyNorman said:
That will always be the case, but maybe over time people can be a little less attached to a particular point of view, and a little less dismissive of another point of view?
Have been posting on the site for little over six months and can still see the same people attached to the same particular point of view, and not quite less dismissive of another point of view.
But I agree with @Cinorjer that here, we're at least civilized.
There is also this sutta on what is right and wrong view and of course the transcendent right view.
And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view[1] in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
The thing with Ajahn Brahm is that I've watched quite a lot of his talks and he always comes across as both intelligent and down-to-earth. And prior to becoming a monk he was a physicist, ie trained in scientific rigour, so not some new-age air-head.
It's also worth observing that he's heavily into jhana and so is talking from the perspective of some advanced meditative states which most of us will not be familiar with.
I have a lot of respect for Ajahn Brahm and I listened to many of his talks on internet.
But I think he takes proving rebirth far too easy. And as a scientist he knows better.
Jhana is a weird state of mind. It happens after doing something weird: sitting in meditation for an extremely long time. It can produce weird experiences that look very real.
How does that prove much else than the fact that Jhana indeed is a weird state of mind?
Also Ajahn Brahm mentions regression-therapy. That’s not for advanced meditators. Anyone can go into such a therapy and come up with wild stories about their past lives. They prove suggestibility and nothing more.
(Oops, I did it again!)
2
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited December 2014
@zenff said:
Jhana is a weird state of mind. It happens after doing something weird: sitting in meditation for an extremely long time. It can produce weird experiences that look very real.
How does that prove much else than the fact that Jhana indeed is a weird state of mind?
Sorry to pick on your post, this is more of a general statement towards the skeptics, I seem to see this often. The above statement isn't a scientific statement, it takes some scientifically known things and extrapolates them to include something for which, to my knowledge at least, there isn't any sort of research. Like in a NDE thread a while back a member used the reptilian brain hypothesis to debunk NDE but stated his argument like the hypothesis was proven science when there haven't been any studies into it.
I don't feel there is much definitive empirical evidence either way and both of our sides like to dress up our arguments to be favorable towards our presumptions.
Not knowing future lives and not remembering past lives puts us on an island of this current life so seeking the moral and emotional benefits from virtue and wisdom for our time now makes the most sense to me, and if future lives are true then we should be set anyway regardless of one's belief.
Yeah, I know, the suttas were horribly corrupted by evil monks.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited December 2014
Oh corruption doesn't matter to me, because I could never confidently know what was corrupted (if anything). What matters is the truth beyond the words, and if it matches the words. The suttas are a guide, but we're the ones who have to walk the path and see where it leads!
Fortunately so far, out of everything I've read of Buddhism, very little conflicts with modern understanding. Very very very little. The rest that I don't know about is metaphysics. It still blows Christianity away, because I've read the Bible and that shit's whack.
@SpinyNorman said:
According to the suttas the Buddha remembered his past lives.
^There's also the cultural backdrop in which he and his followers lived and all the legends that grew up after his passing. "Legends" are "what is read [L legere]" (written down by someone for others to read/believe...).
I would not bank on legends. (Just pointing something out.) For myself, I am an agnostic in this matter, although I must admit to having some element of credulity within. However, I do not think it's a matter of being persuaded or persuading others. What I believe is that every human heart is touched by its own poetry. In other words, all this rebirth or reincarnation stuff is on an entirely different level than logical proofs or disproofs. Poetry does not persuade you, it transforms you; or it can utterly fail or elude you...
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited December 2014
Well, that could be as before Buddha, Krishna told Arjuna in the Gita that he remembered all his past lives.
It's possible that legend caught up with Buddhist lore.
2
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Toraldris said:
Oh corruption doesn't matter to me, because I could never confidently know what was corrupted (if anything). What matters is the truth beyond the words, and if it matches the words. The suttas are a guide, but we're the ones who have to walk the path and see where it leads!
Fortunately so far, out of everything I've read of Buddhism, very little conflicts with modern understanding. Very very very little. The rest that I don't know about is metaphysics. It still blows Christianity away, because I've read the Bible and that shit's whack.
I walk alone, I walk alone. Good night Green Day!
Well said, it pretty much sums up my own sentiments. Corruption doesn't contaminate the truth. It can try and obscure it or demand so much attention we miss the point, but in the great scheme of things, this is samsara. Assume corruption, and not all corruption has bad intent, we just can't help but get it wrong in some fashion. No judgment or blame, our perceptions are 'impure' until they aren't
That shit IS whack, consuming a dead guy's flesh and blood on Sundays? Ewww.
But even that is forgivable, and the symbol it represents is something we could all use a little more of -- forgiveness and meaning. I can ease up on my personal grudges against Christianity for the sake of what I sense as the original intention of Christ's teachings.
I walk alone too -- hand in hand
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited December 2014
@Hamsaka I didn't mean the rituals per se, it's more the "reading material" and everything that follows when people take it literally. They hold to incorrect notions about the Earth and the life on it, and use a book that condones slavery as a basis for such morality as preventing LGBT couples from marriage. It's irksome, but Christians aren't the only ones guilty so let's not pile on them!
I think a big difference is that Buddhism is about the mind and causality, and seems to have done a good job of describing those (whether or not rebirth is correct), but most religions want to say that reality is other than how Science has discovered it to be. There's a reason that this Skeptic / Agnostic-Atheist became and remains a Buddhist. If Buddhism has stuff wrong it's just some metaphysical stuff that isn't that important, IMHO. It still shines where it counts.
Science does describe a selfless, interdependent, transient "world" of experience. We're just not to the point of harmonizing with that, but that's what practice is for.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them..."
@SpinyNorman said (of Jhana):
No, it's an exceptionally clear state of mind.
There is some research – I understand – showing that extended sensory deprivation can result in hallucinations.
The brain is probably not designed for retreats, when people sleep four hours or less each night and spend the rest of the time meditating.
It is plausible that the brain starts playing tricks; just like it does for people in floating tanks for instance.
I’m offering an alternative – and simpler – explanation for people remembering past lives in deep meditation.
They could just be making sense of their hallucinations; especially if they are rebirth-believers in the first place and actually wish for such a memory to occur when they set out on their meditation-retreat.
I think this in line with “Occam’s Razor”. I see rebirth as the more complex theory which cannot be falsified.
For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are better testable and falsifiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Maybe I'm just daffy, but I always thought that hallucinations were things you saw (and heard) with your eyes wide open...??? I do not think this particular approach is particularly apt.
A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception
….
The word 'Hallucination' itself was introduced into the English language by the seventeenth century physician Sir Thomas Browne in 1646 from the derivation of the Latin word alucinari meaning to wander in the mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination
To wander in the mind; isn’t that a nice description of deep meditation?
I dunno. Maybe I'm just prejudiced. I thought meditation was diving deep, not wandering. To wander is to go about aimlessly; to meditate is to go about with purpose.
Well, that's my take. I assure you I can wander around in my mind easily enough. But when I do that I don't arrive at anyplace really.
The brain is probably not designed for retreats, when people sleep four hours or less each night and spend the rest of the time meditating.
Have you actually been on retreats? You seem to have some very odd ideas, about retreats, jhanas, meditation...generally. You seem to be dismissing things out of hand with no understanding or experience of what they actually are.
^There's also the cultural backdrop in which he and his followers lived and all the legends that grew up after his passing. "Legends" are "what is read [L legere]" (written down by someone for others to read/believe...).
Sure, though it's easy to dismiss as legend something that we don't like the sound of, something which doesn't fit with our preconceptions. We don't apply this argument to the bits which we find acceptable.
@SpinyNorman said:
Have you actually been on retreats? You seem to have some very odd ideas, about retreats, jhanas, meditation...generally. You seem to be dismissing things out of hand with no understanding or experience of what they actually are.
If you are interested; yes, I did a few sesshin and some vipassana retreats.
Enough of them to forget exactly how many they are, and also enough of them to know roughly what I’m talking about.
Four hours of sleep – they told me – was the rule for the (Therevada) monks. So in the retreat we reduced sleep gradually to the mentioned time.
In a retreat that’s really not such a problem; not for me anyways.
People (all of them) can hallucinate when they are deprived of sleep and/or of sensory input. In a seriously long meditation that could happen imho.
@Nirvana said: I assure you I can wander around in my mind easily enough. But when I do that I don't arrive at anyplace really. @lobster said: Bravo. Keep up the good work.
This reminds of Bodhifharma’s pacifying the mind.
Huike said to Bodhidharma, “My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.”
Bodhidharma replied, “Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.”
Huike said, “Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.”
“There,” Bodhidharma replied, “I have pacified your mind.”
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Sure, it is possible that people engaging in long term retreat meditation are hallucinating. That idea is based on what happens to people in sensory deprivation settings. I feel that meditation has shown itself to be different enough from our everyday mindset that it would only be conjecture to say that meditators are hallucinating.
Its the sort of thing I was trying to say earlier about possible physicalist explanations that don't have any real research to back them up.
As a counter argument, which also doesn't have research to back it up, I would point out the difference between the crazy recluse and the serene monk.
@zenff said:
To wander in the mind; isn’t that a nice description of deep meditation?
Actually, not it's not. "wandering in the mind" isn't meditation of any sort.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited December 2014
Yeah, that sounds more like day dreaming... That's only useful in meditation as a signal to quit the day dreaming.
@zenff said:
The brain is probably not designed for retreats, when people sleep four hours or less each night and spend the rest of the time meditating.
The brain does just fine for most people. I've done a number of solitary retreats - usually 5 or 6 days. Where I go, we do spend a great deal of time in ppractices of various sorts, but there's also study and chores. I get as much sleep as I want and usually take a litttle nap after an afternoon walk. They don't enforcce monastic rules at the retreat center I go to. So we get 3 squares, plenty of sleep and plenty of practice.
We also have excellent counsel. Some folks will freak out a little on retreat. I'm not sure why, but it does happen and there are monastics who have a lot of experiencee in a retreat setting so we're in good hands. Also, in my lineage, aspiring retreatants are cautioned about going into a retreat too soon and many retreat centers ask for a meditation instructor or Guru references beforre admitting aa new retreatant.
I haaven't been on retreaat in two years. I miss it
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I don't think I could handle a retreat but then I've never gone.
@ourself said:
I don't think I could handle a retreat but then I've never gone.
i can't help but wonder why?
They're not a very big deal. Anyone with a decent home practice would do fine.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Food for thought for sure. My daughter is only 2 weeks shy of a year old so will have to sit on it for a spell.
I've been on some intensive meditation retreats and found myself needing a lot less sleep than usual. I've spoken to other people who found the same thing. Possibly the energising effect of jhana, I'm not sure.
Retreats are just necessary. You just have to go for spiritual refreshment at least a couple times a year: even if only for three or four days at a time. You OWE that to yourself, just as much as you owe yourself some sound sleep, fresh air, and healthy food and drink.
As for the kind of deep diving in meditation that Ajahn Brahm expresses in the OP, I'd think that that would best be done away from familiar surroundings —whether on retreat in caverns or retreat compounds. You probably wouldn't benefit too much in your usual place if you've never done that particular king of fishing-meditation before???
Comments
If we're going to ban something, could it be those awful discussions on the Shugden controversy?
Ok, i can get down with that. No shugden, pro or con, period.
And the endless debates about gun ownership in America?
Lutefisk....ban Lutefisk.
I think these/those types of recurring threads are healthy, so long as they are open. The people who have trouble with them are the people who are approaching it as a closed subject... and rebirth, especially, can never be (honestly) a closed subject. It may be closed that some texts say this or say that, but not whether it's true or not. Those for whom the subject is closed will be vexed if their view is not accepted by others.
Someone said:
It's easier 4 me to get mad when someone insults me. Disagrees? Goes with the territory. In the real world for everyone who can understand one's meaning, there's ten who either cannot or Will Not.
For me, I think being attached to either view is probably not dharmic. I don't think this reincarnation/rebirth stuff should be a qualifying belief for either orthodoxy or heterodoxy. If there verily were an Orthodoxy, then those who do not subscribe to it would be heretics. Now, in the history of the West, heresy was a sin against the Holy Ghost, but schism was a Sin against Charity. But I thought The Lord Buddha admonished his followers not to argue amongst themselves --especially about metaphysics.
One of the things I found interesting in Ajahn Brahm's talk was how the assumption of future rebirth can put our current life into a quite different perspective - maybe easier to cope with the dukkha, maybe less clinging to our current existence.
-----------------------------------------------------
(Pardon that, my quoting feature is whack.)
That could be but to me it sounds dangerously close to the carrot-on-the-stick morality scenario. Not that it's a bad thing...
Future lives for this temporary self doesn't really make sense to me because I wont really be there (at least I don't think I will be) so a future life is the same as any other being alive right now. Now that I think about it, my future rebirth is as important to me as your past rebirth but neither are as important as what we are doing right now. We are in this thing together and so compassion and helping each other grow could do a lot in coping with our dukkha and the clinging that comes with believing it's all about the current self.
Definitely not a criticism of rebirth, just a non-linear view (as such a concept can allow).
Maybe the self should not be abandoned but rather expanded to include all sentient beings... Or we could walk the middle way and treat each other as if they are our future self. They just may be...
As for banning controversial Buddhist topics on a non-sectarian Buddhist forum, wouldn't it be more prudent to make a category for these topics with a warning? I don't mean a "Warning Trolls Ahead" banner but something like "These threads may be seen as controversial so please be advised that anything you post may be challenged or elaborated on. Before responding please take a moment to see if you can handle your view being scrutinised respectfully without responding in anger or cruelty. Don't share what you are afraid to let go of and be mindful of Right speech. This is a Buddhist forum after all."
Maybe we just need to lighten up and quit taking our selves so seriously?
It's a harmless discussion and we are hardly internet thugs.
@ourself Agree, about treating future rebirths no differently than "anyone else". That's the most sensible thing I've ever heard about the subject, because nothing of what we think constitutes "who we are" is reborn. Only what's the same between all of us is reborn, and that's not a self, it's not an "I".
Our differences make us unique, but it's the sameness that binds us all together.
@Toraldris, "Our differences make us unique, but it's the sameness that binds us all together."
True and if you think about it (paradoxically enough) being unique is also just another thing we all have in common. Makes for a nice and perhaps infinite amount of perspectives.
If two heads are better than one, we have hit the motherload... Now if we could only get our act together.
When people believe in rebirth I usually don’t mind that a bit. It’s mostly when someone says (like Ajahn Brahm here) that he knows it for a fact, that there is evidence for rebirth, that I get triggered.
That’s my mistake.
Sorry for that.
Have been posting on the site for little over six months and can still see the same people attached to the same particular point of view, and not quite less dismissive of another point of view.
But I agree with @Cinorjer that here, we're at least civilized.
Doesn't Stevenson's research somewhat 'prove' the idea of rebirth?
Can we kick ideas around w/o kicking each other around? (NOt a rhetorical).
Just about to read his book Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation.
There is also this sutta on what is right and wrong view and of course the transcendent right view.
What did the Buddha think or rather know/realised?
The thing with Ajahn Brahm is that I've watched quite a lot of his talks and he always comes across as both intelligent and down-to-earth. And prior to becoming a monk he was a physicist, ie trained in scientific rigour, so not some new-age air-head.
It's also worth observing that he's heavily into jhana and so is talking from the perspective of some advanced meditative states which most of us will not be familiar with.
I have a lot of respect for Ajahn Brahm and I listened to many of his talks on internet.
But I think he takes proving rebirth far too easy. And as a scientist he knows better.
Jhana is a weird state of mind. It happens after doing something weird: sitting in meditation for an extremely long time. It can produce weird experiences that look very real.
How does that prove much else than the fact that Jhana indeed is a weird state of mind?
Also Ajahn Brahm mentions regression-therapy. That’s not for advanced meditators. Anyone can go into such a therapy and come up with wild stories about their past lives. They prove suggestibility and nothing more.
(Oops, I did it again!)
Sorry to pick on your post, this is more of a general statement towards the skeptics, I seem to see this often. The above statement isn't a scientific statement, it takes some scientifically known things and extrapolates them to include something for which, to my knowledge at least, there isn't any sort of research. Like in a NDE thread a while back a member used the reptilian brain hypothesis to debunk NDE but stated his argument like the hypothesis was proven science when there haven't been any studies into it.
I don't feel there is much definitive empirical evidence either way and both of our sides like to dress up our arguments to be favorable towards our presumptions.
Not knowing future lives and not remembering past lives puts us on an island of this current life so seeking the moral and emotional benefits from virtue and wisdom for our time now makes the most sense to me, and if future lives are true then we should be set anyway regardless of one's belief.
No, it's an exceptionally clear state of mind.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html
According to the suttas the Buddha remembered his past lives.
Yes, that is true. That they say this.
Yeah, I know, the suttas were horribly corrupted by evil monks.
Oh corruption doesn't matter to me, because I could never confidently know what was corrupted (if anything). What matters is the truth beyond the words, and if it matches the words. The suttas are a guide, but we're the ones who have to walk the path and see where it leads!
Fortunately so far, out of everything I've read of Buddhism, very little conflicts with modern understanding. Very very very little. The rest that I don't know about is metaphysics. It still blows Christianity away, because I've read the Bible and that shit's whack.
I walk alone, I walk alone. Good night Green Day!
^There's also the cultural backdrop in which he and his followers lived and all the legends that grew up after his passing. "Legends" are "what is read [L legere]" (written down by someone for others to read/believe...).
I would not bank on legends. (Just pointing something out.) For myself, I am an agnostic in this matter, although I must admit to having some element of credulity within. However, I do not think it's a matter of being persuaded or persuading others. What I believe is that every human heart is touched by its own poetry. In other words, all this rebirth or reincarnation stuff is on an entirely different level than logical proofs or disproofs. Poetry does not persuade you, it transforms you; or it can utterly fail or elude you...
It's possible that legend caught up with Buddhist lore.
Well said, it pretty much sums up my own sentiments. Corruption doesn't contaminate the truth. It can try and obscure it or demand so much attention we miss the point, but in the great scheme of things, this is samsara. Assume corruption, and not all corruption has bad intent, we just can't help but get it wrong in some fashion. No judgment or blame, our perceptions are 'impure' until they aren't
That shit IS whack, consuming a dead guy's flesh and blood on Sundays? Ewww.
But even that is forgivable, and the symbol it represents is something we could all use a little more of -- forgiveness and meaning. I can ease up on my personal grudges against Christianity for the sake of what I sense as the original intention of Christ's teachings.
I walk alone too -- hand in hand
@Hamsaka I didn't mean the rituals per se, it's more the "reading material" and everything that follows when people take it literally. They hold to incorrect notions about the Earth and the life on it, and use a book that condones slavery as a basis for such morality as preventing LGBT couples from marriage. It's irksome, but Christians aren't the only ones guilty so let's not pile on them!
I think a big difference is that Buddhism is about the mind and causality, and seems to have done a good job of describing those (whether or not rebirth is correct), but most religions want to say that reality is other than how Science has discovered it to be. There's a reason that this Skeptic / Agnostic-Atheist became and remains a Buddhist. If Buddhism has stuff wrong it's just some metaphysical stuff that isn't that important, IMHO. It still shines where it counts.
Science does describe a selfless, interdependent, transient "world" of experience. We're just not to the point of harmonizing with that, but that's what practice is for.
Kalama Sutta:
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them..."
Thus did some wise dude say (allegedly)
^Nice. This also made me smile.
There is some research – I understand – showing that extended sensory deprivation can result in hallucinations.
The brain is probably not designed for retreats, when people sleep four hours or less each night and spend the rest of the time meditating.
It is plausible that the brain starts playing tricks; just like it does for people in floating tanks for instance.
I’m offering an alternative – and simpler – explanation for people remembering past lives in deep meditation.
They could just be making sense of their hallucinations; especially if they are rebirth-believers in the first place and actually wish for such a memory to occur when they set out on their meditation-retreat.
I think this in line with “Occam’s Razor”. I see rebirth as the more complex theory which cannot be falsified.
Maybe I'm just daffy, but I always thought that hallucinations were things you saw (and heard) with your eyes wide open...??? I do not think this particular approach is particularly apt.
To wander in the mind; isn’t that a nice description of deep meditation?
I dunno. Maybe I'm just prejudiced. I thought meditation was diving deep, not wandering. To wander is to go about aimlessly; to meditate is to go about with purpose.
Well, that's my take. I assure you I can wander around in my mind easily enough. But when I do that I don't arrive at anyplace really.
Bravo. Keep up the good work
The brain is probably not designed for retreats, when people sleep four hours or less each night and spend the rest of the time meditating.
Have you actually been on retreats? You seem to have some very odd ideas, about retreats, jhanas, meditation...generally. You seem to be dismissing things out of hand with no understanding or experience of what they actually are.
To wander in the mind; isn’t that a nice description of deep meditation?
No it isn't, and jhana is nothing to do with hallucination. You can experience jhana with eyes open, by the way.
^There's also the cultural backdrop in which he and his followers lived and all the legends that grew up after his passing. "Legends" are "what is read [L legere]" (written down by someone for others to read/believe...).
Sure, though it's easy to dismiss as legend something that we don't like the sound of, something which doesn't fit with our preconceptions. We don't apply this argument to the bits which we find acceptable.
If you are interested; yes, I did a few sesshin and some vipassana retreats.
Enough of them to forget exactly how many they are, and also enough of them to know roughly what I’m talking about.
Four hours of sleep – they told me – was the rule for the (Therevada) monks. So in the retreat we reduced sleep gradually to the mentioned time.
In a retreat that’s really not such a problem; not for me anyways.
People (all of them) can hallucinate when they are deprived of sleep and/or of sensory input. In a seriously long meditation that could happen imho.
This reminds of Bodhifharma’s pacifying the mind.
Sure, it is possible that people engaging in long term retreat meditation are hallucinating. That idea is based on what happens to people in sensory deprivation settings. I feel that meditation has shown itself to be different enough from our everyday mindset that it would only be conjecture to say that meditators are hallucinating.
Its the sort of thing I was trying to say earlier about possible physicalist explanations that don't have any real research to back them up.
As a counter argument, which also doesn't have research to back it up, I would point out the difference between the crazy recluse and the serene monk.
Let's see what a neuro scientist has to say.
Brains of Buddhist monks scanned in meditation study
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12661646
Actually, not it's not. "wandering in the mind" isn't meditation of any sort.
The brain does just fine for most people. I've done a number of solitary retreats - usually 5 or 6 days. Where I go, we do spend a great deal of time in ppractices of various sorts, but there's also study and chores. I get as much sleep as I want and usually take a litttle nap after an afternoon walk. They don't enforcce monastic rules at the retreat center I go to. So we get 3 squares, plenty of sleep and plenty of practice.
We also have excellent counsel. Some folks will freak out a little on retreat. I'm not sure why, but it does happen and there are monastics who have a lot of experiencee in a retreat setting so we're in good hands. Also, in my lineage, aspiring retreatants are cautioned about going into a retreat too soon and many retreat centers ask for a meditation instructor or Guru references beforre admitting aa new retreatant.
I haaven't been on retreaat in two years. I miss it
i can't help but wonder why?
They're not a very big deal. Anyone with a decent home practice would do fine.
I've been on some intensive meditation retreats and found myself needing a lot less sleep than usual. I've spoken to other people who found the same thing. Possibly the energising effect of jhana, I'm not sure.
Retreats are just necessary. You just have to go for spiritual refreshment at least a couple times a year: even if only for three or four days at a time. You OWE that to yourself, just as much as you owe yourself some sound sleep, fresh air, and healthy food and drink.
As for the kind of deep diving in meditation that Ajahn Brahm expresses in the OP, I'd think that that would best be done away from familiar surroundings —whether on retreat in caverns or retreat compounds. You probably wouldn't benefit too much in your usual place if you've never done that particular king of fishing-meditation before???