Reflections on rebirth
Lee82
Veteran
Hey, not posted on here for a while but still check in every now and again :-)
There's something that I've been reflecting on recently regarding the philosophy of multiple lives and births. In my early Buddhism days my mind was totally against the idea of rebirth; I was of the view that this life is the only life and when it's gone it's gone. I became more open-minded and accepted that there is no way to prove or disprove the theory so I will not form a judgement on it, I had accepted that the bardo states and rebirth are a possibility. I am now more inclined to accept the theory that my true being is one that has no physical form and that I occupy this body in this life and will move to another life after this one. Thus accepting the impermanence of this life and having no fear of death.
One thing that I cannot reconcile in my mind is that evidence of reincarnation always suggests a transfer of memory from one life to the next. But if our true being is non-physical and memories are stored in our brain cells (as evidenced by degenerative mental conditions that cause loss of memory), how can memories of any sort be transferred to another life?
Something doesn't quite fit right for me. I'm sure there's a logical argument or solution to my ponderings and if someone could kindly explain to me then I'd be more than happy to listen. I'm getting there, just not quite there yet.
Comments
Even amongst the true believers there often isn't much on the details for how it actually works.
The Tibetans are fairly hardcore dualists, they see the brain as more of a receiver of the mind than the source. So if certain mental functions are damaged due to damage of the brain its because the brain isn't able to receive the mind 'signals'.
Personally, I don't feel that that kind of dualism sits well with current neuroscience (how does the immaterial mind move the atoms and molecules around), but also don't feel that physicalist neuroscience has comes to terms with how matter gives rise to immaterial consciousness (I think they largely says its an illusion or just ignore it altogether).
I feel the reality lies somewhere between and is much more subtle. I think the sensible position at the moment is 'who knows' and to embrace uncertainty.
I think there's a lot that science doesn't know or is unable to prove, conscience being one of them. A simple thought I have about human development and science is this...
Humans are naturally able to see certain things (light waves) and hear certain things (sound waves) but there are many other things all around us that we are unable to see or detect. For example we have developed technology that can 'see' infrared, radiation, heat, magnetism etc. that naturally we are unable to. How many other dimensions are there that we simply don't have the technology to detect, we don't know they exist so we don't know how to look for them. Science might never find these things, though I also think that one day in the distant future, scientific discoveries will prove things that are currently incomprehensible, the true nature of mind and our being might be one of those things, though not for a very long time.
My own comfort zone is more or less practice-based and sounds like this: "Rebirth" is what happens in any given moment; "reincarnation" is what happens in Hollywood.
I have nothing against a good story, and who knows, perhaps I was Queen Nefertiti in an earlier time. I do kind of wonder that most of the stories surrounding reincarnated individuals always seem to look back on a pretty august former life: No one goes around bragging they were a chimney sweep in the time of Oliver Twist or rowed a Roman galley headed into battle. But I can sympathize ... a good story needs a little sass.
The other aspect that slows me down a bit is that if, in fact, someone was reincarnated out of the past, 1. why is no one ever reincarnated out of the future and 2. once in possession of this information, does it or would it significantly change the fact that a chocolate bar melts in the summer heat or the rent comes due on the last day of the month ... i.e. what usefulness is there in the information?
As I say, I'm not trying to be snarky ... just stating a lazy preference.
When it comes to "rebirth," however, I think there is enough empirical evidence to warrant investigation. True, there is nothing to be done about it, but knowing it happens helps to provide a more realistic outlook ... at least from where I sit.
And I state this preference from the point of view of Zen's proclivity for zazen or seated meditation. Anyone who has sat down, straightened the spine, shut up and focused the mind a little knows that finding a line between this moment and that is more mythology than anything else. "Then" doesn't exactly 'become' now ... it flows into and cannot be distinguished in reality from "now." Each moment is born, but before the word "born" can be uttered, it dies and is instantaneously reborn into another "now" which is not exactly "then" but is not exactly "not-then." Trying to bring this reality under some sort of intellectual or emotional control ("oh yes, I understand") is considerably stupider than a dog chasing its tail ... you'll never catch it and if you did, what the hell good would it do you?
But settling down and learning to live with what practice teaches -- you know, the good stuff you may not be able to understand -- is far wiser in the long run than working up some philosophical tapestry that "makes sense."
OK, there is birthdeath or deathbirth or ... find a name you like. Every moment.
My teacher's teacher, Soen Nakagawa Roshi, one-time abbot of a Japanese monastery, once commented, "There is birth and there is death. In between, there is enlightenment."
Leave out the "in between" and I pretty much agree with him.
Sorry for so much chitchat.
I learned reincarnation is one of the 3 inevitable(unchangeable-once its made, cannot be changed) Law of buddhism along with karmic Law, Law of nidana-chain of causation( direct cause & indirect cause ).
Believing or not its up to you and here is what I've been told.
Our karma along with every little action, every little thoughts are being recorded and reported and transferred into the super computer system of the universe ( I am not sure if this is the computer that we think or its just a figure of speech ) and at the same time these data is being carved&sealed into our soul ( so to speak, my teacher uses different word but I think in english soul is closest word I can find ). Our soul is like a miniature cosmos so its called Śūnyatā ( as in 'cosmos' or 'universe', somewhat similar to the meaning of 'space' )
on the closing date of those data ( moment of our last breath ), our karmic score is made for this life.
some people have enough score to be born almost immediately after death ( and its also depends on the availability of proper place ( body - DNA & parents & everything that you will be born with including background - btw you get the parents that fits most correctly to your karmic score among the previous lives blood related relationship )
I know this sounds like a made up story but that's what I've been told from my teacher.
When you are born again, your memories of past lives are stored at subconscious mind.
memories of past lives are not allowed to be remembered to the normal people like us, only those who reached at certain level ( such as boddhisattva, Buddha ) can recall them.
we are living this life as we made in our previous life, and we are making the next life in this present life. so three lives of ours are interwind in a very accurate way.
that is just the Law of nature I've been told.
Hope this answers to your question, wether disregard or believe its all up to you : )
I would like to add that our physical body is composed of 4 elements that we borrowed from the universe everytime we are born and we return them after we die ( earth-body tissue, wind-breath,air we breathe, fire-body heat, temperature, & water- body fluid. )
so the brain also are just a temporary borrowed elements for this life only. the data is in our soul, subconsciousness and the computer of the universe.
one more thing that I was very sad about reincarnation, you keep meeting the same people! especially your blood related family members. so you don't just reborn in korea as a asian if you are caucasian vise versa for example. this really bums me out.
If there is rebirth, id say what is reborn is not "us" it would be completely formless awareness. The story of us is going to die. The story won't carry on.
Alan Watts puts it this way,
Someone dies and then a baby is born. A baby with a sense. "I am"
Is it you? No. But it has the same sense. I am.
Nothing personal about it, I think people cling to rebirth to make them feel better about death. The same way other religions talk about an after life. It's our way of being ok with death.
Just to rattle the cages a bit more, I have also heard it said that the reason there is no birth and death is because you never existed(ego) so you can't die.
The body and mind will die. We are all conscious however and maybe that's what appears again. But it's not the story of us that carries on.
My theory anyway based on things I've gathered. It's a hunch for me.
Rebirth is something most teachers like Sri Ramana don't talk about because you don't even know who you are and you are asking about rebirth.
Find out who is asking the question.
I like this approach because we are basing rebirth around ego. Because we don't don't understand. The mind is trying to conceptualise everything.
"My true being is ....... " is just a thought or idea. It arises and ceases. You are not a thought, a feeling, a perception or a body. All that is impermanent is not you! What is left? It is just this knowing.
Self identification (sakkayaditthi) is the reason why there is the believe in eternalism and is not the Middle Way.
"For a monk practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, this is what accords with the Dhamma: that he keep cultivating disenchantment/distaste with regard to form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness. As he keeps cultivating disenchantment/distaste with regard to form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, he comprehends form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness. As he comprehends form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, he is totally released from form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness. He is totally released from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is totally released, I tell you, from suffering & stress."
— SN 22.39
Those of us who practice very soon find the nature of self to be a fabrication, based on dependent condititions. That experience requires no promises of pureland heavens or the convenient loss of essential survival skills when we are born ignorant and have to learn again.
I find death is a mechanism for evolution. It improves the survival of ever changing environmental factors. The evidence for evolution convinces me and most people who care to educate themselves.
mmm ...
You wish to be unkindly lied to? Told of ignorant superstition and ancient faith/beliefs that are not part of our knowledge or as 'fact'? No can do. Others sadly will, as ever ...
... and now back to fantasy dharma ...
There are a few ways it could work if it does indeed work but who knows which is right?
Personally, I don't think that when I die I'll be reborn as somebody else.
I figure that which is reborn as me is also reborn as you.
Aren't they synced on the Cloud?
Ha ha ha. Kidding. I have no idea how that works.
But I thought that the forgetting of former life memories was what generally characterizes rebirth?
And those that remember their former lives are very few?
The Jehovah's Witnesses have this interesting idea that all that we are are "stored" away with God so that we can be resurrected in the final days.
Maybe that is how it works or maybe it is the Cloud after all?
.
I guess there could be a thousand ways that it works but how to find out which one?
Anyway why is it important? I mean if you remember past lives you do and if you dont then you dont. Does it matter?
/Victor
If we could remember past lives they would probably taint the current one with trying to keep score.
How can we taste this brew if our cup still has some of the last brew in it?
No.
As I understand it, life, does not end at what we call death. We will be reborn but not reincarnated. We carry the karma created into our new manifest existence, but we do not carry the memories of this manifest existence into the next. Lee82 will not reemerge as Lee82, but as George or Jane or Olef or a bird or...depending upon the causes made. As life does not cease at death, there is no reincarnation, there is reemergence of life or rebirth. We each will be reborn as ourselves but in a different manifest form.
Now, time for an extra strong, dark roast cup of joe.
Real enough?
In an empty cup with fresh grounds? That is what I remember ... I do believe in recaffeination. Seems very knowable, real and relevant.
@Lee82
Depends on what you mean by 'memory'. If memory are just the thoughts of your past, then, no, they won't carry on.
But you can picture your whole body as being a memory of the life you had.
So, after you die, you don't just disappear, your body falls apart and that might be seen as your memory living on in some weird way.
Beats me what that feels like and if you're conscious somehow.
Life goes on as it has always been. The biggest trap is the believe that there is a "me" who was born, grows old and dies. This deep rooted belief leads to the view of eternalism (something carries on after death) or nihilsm (that something ends at death). That is sakkayaditthi.
The Buddha discovered there was never a self. There is the experience of aging, sickness and death but they are not to be taken personally. Of course there are also the experience of love, compassion, kindness etc.
He never told us what we are; only what we are not.
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
Anattalakkhana Sutta
Sure, but it's also the case that in the suttas there is lots of stuff about being reappearing in different realms according to their actions, ie kamma.
Sure. But when the Buddha was instructing for the purpose of liberation(freedom from birth and death), he did not speak in those terms.
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
Sabbasava Sutta
Eg.
Bahiya Sutta, Mahatanhasakkaya, Anattalakkahana, Chachakka, Satta Sutta.
Insightful wisdom as always from the forum :-)
Hmm. Well, I'd say that maybe the medical community is drawing the wrong conclusion from memory loss due to degenerative mental conditions.
The current theory put forward by surgeons who have studied Near Death Experiences in their patients is that memory and consciousness exists in a field that's relatively independent of the body, and that the brain functions mainly as a receiver of the consciousness field. So following that logic, one might conclude that degenerative grain disease damages the receiver, not the memory or consciousness.
Hey, OP, I gave it my best shot.
"Is rebirth true or just a religious scheme-an attempt to shed some light on the dreamer's dream! - At this moment in time I'm really not fussed- after death as become me, (perhaps then) I'll have it all sussed !"
"Whilst moment to moment the life flux swings-we continually change into many things-rebirth is happening all the time-I've changed more than once whilst writing this simple rhyme!"
" And has you decipher in your head-the weirdness of the rhyme that you've just read-many changes have happened to both body and mind-but ignorance (it would seem) leaves one blind!"
If a person has been this way before then it's possible the awareness that surrounds their/the bundle of vibrating karmic energy (the self) has the memories (karmic imprint) to prove it.... Who really knows?
Your guess is as good as mine/any @Lee82 ...
We have a tendency to think in terms of "I" or "ME". We are really interdependent and interconnected with everything else in the universe. The "I" or "ME" is a convenience of our conscious mind, the compilation of the 5 senses into the 6th sense aka conscious mind. (Clear as mud, covers the ground.
)
I prefer my coffee strong and in liquid form. That's one pleasurable "delusion" among many. A small flower happened upon along the trail is another...
Truth, these forays are a divergence from that 50 ton tank rumbling up in my rear view mirror. Guess I'll just have to get out and put a bouquet of flowers in it's muzzle.
Life truly is beautiful, even on the occasions when it really hurts.
Cheers!
The transfer of information from one brain to another, directly without using the senses, is a problem. I agree with that. (Also I’m not much of a believer in rebirth)
The Buddha – according to tradition – however was omniscient. He didn’t just see his own past lives; he saw those of others just as clearly. That’s something different, I think.
So maybe your question could be phrased differently. How does an enlightened mind “see” the lives of the past and their connections to the present ones?
For me that’s equally problematic but maybe it’s less so for you?
was never omniscient, and in fact flatly denied it.
He was 'awake'. But this didn't make him omniscient.
This might be a difference in Mahayana, they certainly say he was omniscient. Are you aware, or anyone else, of the passage(s) where he does deny it?
yes.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.036.than.html
Tradition has different answers to the question.
What the historical Buddha said on the subject nobody knows.
What the historical Buddha said on the subject nobody knows.
Unless a person has attained omniscience for himself.
He (or she) could correctly quote the Buddha I suppose.
Yes, but as the Pali canon pre-dates later 'scriptures' and Sutras by quite a while, I know where I'm hanging MY hat.....
http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol4/was_the_buddha_omniscient.html
"...In the sense that all knowable things are POTENTIALLY accessible to him."
Doesn't mean he actually knows them all, and as is pointed out, he cannot know everything simultaneously, which I think is a different interpretation adopted by Mahayana schools....
According to the commentarial tradition, this statement encompasses to two different scopes of omniscience. Bhikkhu Bodhi writes,
According to the exegetical Theravaada tradition the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that all knowable things are potentially accessible to him. He cannot, however, know everything simultaneously and must advert to what he wishes to know.
http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol4/was_the_buddha_omniscient.html
Thanks @bookworm, in light of that article it seems like the pali canon asserts some sort of omniscience to the Buddha, though not definitively. Sorry to nitpick this but your previous statement was rather specific and definitive, but @federica I think stating that he flatly denied it doesn't stand up, unless you have some other information.
Isn't his denial sufficient....?
It makes sense in light of dependently arisen phenomena, for example, eye consciousness doesn't flow to become ear consciousness or flow to become mind consciousness, but when you have eye then you have forms, then eye consciousness, the meeting of those three things is eye contact.
Are we still on the OP's topic of 'reflections on rebirth'...?
I'm siding with federica on this. Sakyamuni was a Buddha - an "Awakened One". Enlightenment (Buddha) is not the condition of being omniscient. I am a Mahayana Buddhist and, while some out there in the vast world may think he was, Sakyamuni was not omniscient. He was not a god, he was a buddha. Wisdom and "All Knowing" are not nor ever will be the same.
dang! spul chuk mized agin!
The revision of your post is brought to you by the courtesy of the on-forum spell-checker inc.
No thanks are necessary.
Duly slapped on the knuckles.
Yo are diligent!
Also addendum to 12:57PM post: Sakyamuni was neither all knowing nor all powerful. Again, he was a Buddha.
I'm not trying to say that the Buddha is omniscient and maybe I missed it but I didn't see anywhere that he denied it. In http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.036.than.html
he denies being a deva, a gandhabba, a yakkha, and a human but doesn't 'flatly' deny omniscience.
@Lionduck also says that the Buddha is not omniscient.
Neither of you are just saying that being a Buddha doesn't necessarily equate with omniscience, you are taking the positive stance that he was not and I'm not seeing where you are getting such a definitive statement from.
My point is about definitive statements. I think questioning the claims of omniscience are fair and reasonable but absolutely denying it, I think, requires some kind of specific reference or proof.
The article makes for difficult reading due to typographical and formatting complexities. (As you can see, I have not corrected them in the above quotation....)
However, the Author has - it would appear - found instances in the Pali Canon which would seem to denote that not only was the Buddha NOT Omniscient, but he demonstrated such an error of perception more than once...
Interestingly, it is the same article from which @bookworm quoted above, in SUPPORT of his assertion of the Buddha's Omniscience!
http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol4/was_the_buddha_omniscient.html
Personally I didn't find it so conclusive it ended up reading like other attempts to secularize the canon.
The article was fine everyone can argue their point of view. I think what raised my hackles on this one were the certainty of the denials. If your initial post was more like
I wouldn't have objected.
Hackles raised...? Really?
I'm surprised it took so little....
It's only a discussion, after all.... horses for courses, tomayto, tomah-to....
The importance is to know suffering and how to transcend it.
That's what he taught, that's what we need to learn...
4NT, 8FP.
Who or what he was is ultimately a matter of opinion and conjecture.
And really, ultimately, I don't think it matters much to us, as individuals. I mean, it's not sufficiently significant to sway us from our path....
Is it....?
Nope. Once you get the spiritual bug, that's it. You are gone. Haha
My point was intended as a contribution (instead of attacking the blind faith in the idea of rebirth as usual).
Instead of seeing the knowledge of a previous life as a case of “memory” - as a perceived personal experience in a personal past life - maybe it can be seen as the knowledge of an observing mind.
When a mind is detached from its false personal identification it can break free from its limitations and see beyond them. It can see the connections between apparently separate lives, but none of them are me or mine.
I am very much a skeptic on anything superhuman, so I am not convinced this is possible.
What I wrote was an attempt to give another perspective on the OP’s problem with the transmission of memories at rebirth. When the Buddha can see it when he wants to, the information doesn’t have to be stored and transmitted as a memory.
I never intended to spark a debate on the omniscience of the Buddha.
Yes, it is possible to think that there is no rebirth if you are living life positively and have no cravings with balanced mind. This is reality for you. I think if person think that there is no further rebirth then he /she could live life fullest but he/she should have wisdome as well to keep it simple. I like feeling of no rebirth because from that moment we start living life pleasently and joyfully.
@rohit
Yes, and a while ago someone posted a link on an enlightened monk whose doctrine was that you are 'unborn'.
When you think about it for a second there's just so much freedom in that idea.
I'm not sure why you would need to attack blind faith in rebirth, since I don't see anyone here arguing in favour of it. It seems more like aversion on your part.
Buddha said he remembered his past lives.