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.
Do Most Monks Have The Ability To Remember Their Previous Lives?
Lets say for example, a well respected monk, like Ajahn Cha or somebody else of his stature...after all those hours meditating, do you think they would have the ability to remember their previous lives. Are there any documents floating around on the internet about monks describing their past lives, I know the monks are not supposed to tell lay people about this but are any monks that did talk about it a little bit?
0
Comments
So stories abound about the Buddha's previous lives, and he speaks of Kamma and re-birth, but instead of investigating and studying his words and the suttas, you'd be more convinced is someone were to discuss it today....?
i think the thing you need to do is simply accept your own scepticism, doubt, uncertainty, and leave it aside and concentrate on something more tangible, like the Four, the Eight and the Five.
Maybe, by dedicating yourself to the Buddha's fundamental basics, in time, things will be clearer.
or maybe not.
In either event.....
Who cares?
Practise now.
Enjoy now.
I wouldn't, because there would still be no evidence for it. Strictly speaking, "so and so said so" is not evidence for a fantastic claim such as rebirth.
Right. Whatever you do, don't think for yourself about things. Remember, faith is a virtue.
...right?
Probably good advice, but is there anything wrong with seeking answers to questions? Or are we supposed to shrug off every skeptical thought because it's not PC around here?
Curiosity is one of the endless graces a Buddhist enjoys....
we're constantly being urged to 'seek things for ourselves'.....
However, it's fine to ask questions, but these are questions that have been asked by thousands before, and all have received the same advice - more or less.
Investigate for yourself, but allow the experience of long practise to give you further insight.
occasionally, the question;
"How useful is this to my practice, right now? Is it vital I seek and Know, immediately?"
begs asking.....
And (I speak from experience here!) sometimes, the right time to seek an answer is not now, but next-now....
It also says that there are six kinds of people that can recollect their previous lives: other sectarians, ordinary disciples, Great Disciples, Chief Disciples, Pacceka Buddhas and Buddhas :eek2:
But that is just for curiosity sake :crazy:
Is it on the net?
Are there any denominations that take a more naturalistic approach to reality?
Yes.
Tibetan Buddhists acribe to reincarnation, but only for highly elevated Lamas who have achieved such a spiritual ability that they are able to decree the location of their re-manifestation as a Tulku....But even this is merely an embodiment of their Spiritual essence - it's not a carbon-copy bona-fide duplicate.... because the new Tulku has, for themselves, much to offer in their own right....
Re-birth is the standard Buddhist premise....which is generalised and more accepted by most.
If not all.
It isn't necessary to believe in reincarnation in order to practice Buddhist teachings, whatever anyone says to the contrary.
Whichever offline tradition one decides to practice with,if one investigates thoroughly,it is possible to find teachers who don't push rebirth beliefs all the time.
Regarding Tibetan teachers, a friend of mine once said to a tulku "I'm not able to believe in rebirth" to which the reply was "Never mind about other lives, this is the one that counts! "
There have been and there are teachers with the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition who don't push rebirth all the time too.
So keep investigating !
Kind regards,
Dazzle
Perhaps I'm mixing terms. Let me rephrase:
I'm a skeptic by nature and I'm very new to Buddhism. That said, I'm really struggling to understand why people believe in rebirth. Is it based on evidence, or is it based on dogma? Unfortunately, I suspect it's the latter, and I have a real hard time accepting that.
Are there any denominations that take a more naturalistic approach to reality?
Hello Mr_C,
You may want to consider that any fixed opinion about post mortem survival or not will partake of the nature of dogmatism. Buddhist practice includes meditation on the dissolution of the body after death, which is the only "naturalistic approach" - anything else is speculation. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
when one attains the ultimate siddhi (Buddhahood) all the others come in a package deal.
You're right, Simon. If I were taking this stance in reaction to a core belief of mine and could not be swayed by evidence, I would be guilty of some sort of dogmatism or fundamentalism.
From my perspective, I'm faced with a fantastic claim of a supernatural nature for which there is no scientific evidence. In fact, the only reason that we are discussing this is not because the phenomenon exists, but rather because our religion says it exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without it, Occam's Razor takes care of the claim quite nicely.
Because we have evidence for a single life.
We see this in nature all the time. An animal is born, it lives its life, and then it dies. What happens after the animal dies? Well, its body decomposes and eventually returns to the ground and the atmosphere. In a naturalistic sense, the animal "lives on" as fertilizer for vegetation, food for other animals, perhaps even life-sustaining clothing for people. But the animal's existence is, for all intensive purposes, over.
Furthermore, there is more and more evidence in the field of neurology that we are our brains. That consciousness is a natural by-product of traits such as imagination, which is a survival adaptation. We aren't "ghosts driving a machine", we are the machine. And when the machine dies, it only makes logical sense that we die with it.
this "evidence" is based on an assumption and an accepted dismissal of rebirth and is far from definitive.
The denial of rebirth is a nihilistic extreme view that is in drastic contradiction of Buddhism. You would be better off believing in an Abrahamic God than nothing at all.
In my opinion a single life theory is irrational and basically causes us to fall into the trap of asserting that the universe functions on the non-principle of chaos.
Also the denial of rebirth also pulls the rug out from under the teachings on karma and causality, dependent origination, and the result of the path.
no rebirth, no Buddhism.
Also the more we study the more we learn that the brain is not the machine we think it is. For example there is nothing fixed about the visual cortex that links it with the eye faculty. The visual cortex can actually be used for any sensory input.
Another option is that you're completely unaware of the 10,000s of pages of text of detailed reasonings on the topic.
Also consciousness as a functioning thing is about as supernatural as saying that we're constantly bombarded with this invisible thing called light. The only difference about that and consciousness is the assertion of it being totally non-physical.
Sorry, no. It's a naturalistic view, and that's all it is.
Now we're getting somewhere. Do you think it's important to believe in rebirth in order to practice Buddhism? Why or why not?
I disagree.
The universe doesn't have to function the way we want it to.
There is. It's called the lateral geniculate nucleus, which is like a centralized cpu for visual data.
There are perhaps millions of pages of detailed reasonings for the existence of the abrahamic god. Which text proves its existence to you?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
For the life of me, I can't think of anything that exists that is completely non-physical. Even a thought has physical origins. Surely consciousness does as well.
This is not the Tibetan view. Where did you get such an idea?
I accept rebirth as a possibility because Buddha spoke about it. It would be impossible to have faith that Buddhist practice will yield fruits without necessarily believing that Buddha's 'spiritual' knowledge (as recorded in texts and transmitted) to be far superior to my own. This could be characterized as dogma, but I don't think it falls into the category of blind faith. Modern neuroscience has proven many of the claims of Buddhism (e.g. the work of the Mind and Life Institute), which for me lends credence to the doctrines that we cannot as yet address scientifically.
As has been mentioned, skepticism about rebirth needn't hinder your practice if it isn't causing you to be a nihilistic hedonist (which it obviously isn't).
I don't mean physical connection I mean function. Below is a lecture which talks about it in the Q&A section but the rest of it is so good and relevant you should watch the whole thing:
Mindsight: The new Science for Personal Transformation - Dr Daniel Seigel
No there are not. In any case, the point is god is by definition unknowable and unverifiable, that is why faith is required. The mind however (and buddhist tenets as a whole) is defined as knowable and verifiable and therefore by definition must be supported by reasoning, and not faith.
Asserting that a verifiable and knowable thing is an unverifable and unknowable thing implies that reasonings do not exist, in which case, go and make sure that no reasonings in fact exist. Not only are there countless reasonings but there are specific debates against nihilists which is itself not a new idea and has not gotten any more sophisticated with the increase of tech. Nihilists were making the same basic points back then that children nihilists, teenage nihilists and adult scientist nihilists still make now. According to buddhist logic/tenets it's very clear that nihilism is an obscuration brought about by a strong grasping to self.
They have the neural correlates for various general and even specific experiences. They have however not shown that the experience and the neural activity are one in the same thing. In fact there are serious problems between equating them as such, and it seems the more we learn the more problems arise in doing that. But, it's early days yet.
Who is out to anwser a question here, and who is out to be right? I have read, in a book where the Dalai Lama was interviewed and he said something to the effect that when we chose to be right rather then to learn we are choosing the unskilled over the skilled.
(that is a paraphrase)
I'm new to this, and all of you my be in the right place when you post. If you are please ignore this. It really just is food for thought.
I'm not dismissing anything, the results in no way conflict with the actual teachings on rebirth.
"Sorry, no. It's a naturalistic view, and that's all it is."
not from the Buddhist perspective or any other perspective really, your view is nihilistic, there is no question about it.
"Now we're getting somewhere. Do you think it's important to believe in rebirth in order to practice Buddhism? Why or why not?"
I dont think its important to "believe" in anything. The functional basis and reasoning behind rebirth that is exhaustive is far more convincing than the very early and developing neuroscience that you have misinterpreted as in conflict with the teachings is enough to at least recognize its importance.
"I disagree."
well you're wrong again. from the buddhist perspective of the two wrong views, eternalism and nihilism, nihilism is worse so you would indeed be better off believing in God than nothing.
"The universe doesn't have to function the way we want it to.
the universe doesnt function the way we want it to. if it did there wouldnt be any samsara to worry about in the first place.
What does everybody think about this view of rebirth?
i'm not a fan of this interpretation as a definitive one.
Really observing impermanence produces saner and more rational people. That there are people who are more interested in that than getting drunk and watching tv is a good thing in the world.
By 'hard', I mean both difficult because of defective memory but also because there have been some pretty shitty things over the years.
If "I" have lived before, I am very grateful that I do not remember - after all, the suggestion is that we have lived as both the best and the worst sort of person. The possibility that "I" might have been a murdering, torturing, abusing monster gives me pause to offer prayers for such people and, even, to find the seeds in myself. It would be quite another thing to discover that "I" had watered and cultivated and grown those seeds in another life.
the physical world is for sure reborn, look at trees and leaves,
look at suns and planets,
even bacteria, even atoms and electrons,
they all are bound to this system of transformation, that's not your question, cause we all know that..
'WE' however, or...our 'mind-body' construct, is like dual focusing lenses; that focuses awareness/Buddha-mind when they are aligned properly(?)....when our lenses die, what happens to THAT which was focused...
is the question you should be asking...
based on this I think there is something underneath it all, like a universal radio wave...pure awareness maybe , THE UNIVERSE'S awareness.. probably .....:cool: but anyway remember that "i" and "myself" etc etc is a fake matrix used by the mind-body/focusing agents/contruct to survive, so why should THAT continue when your two lenses are destroyed?
there is systems in place everywhere in nature, i guess they naturally evolved,
but one such system might be the inability to remember past lives, based on the possibility that knowing past lives might adversely conflict with or affect survival instincts,
however maybe given enough preparation THIS system can be beat, just like the other systems we in Buddhism try to beat (samsaric systems)
Even if one can recall ie snippets etc there's still this life to live. Focus on practice is the best course of action IMO, and less focus on peripherals. IMO. Best wishes, Abu.
Since you believe in psychic powers, my opinion about these matters has always been the adults with psychic powers are merely controlling the malleable & innocent minds of these children.
I've always found it peculiar that no one who claims to remember his or her past lives was ever an ordinary person. They were always a great master, an Apostle of Jesus (lots of those guys running around) or Napoleon. No one seems to remember life as a slave girl who died during childbirth, even though it seems that they should be far more plentiful than meditation masters and Apostles.
there have been many cases of people recalling "ordinary" previous lives.
how we interpret or understand what they claim to remember is a different story.
Sure. But who we are right now is much more than the materialists and nihilists can see. So anything which shows the lie of these philosophies is a help.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua_Mulan">Hua Mulan</a>.
There is much that remains unexplained. Deja Vu or experiences of insight have all been documented and I have witnessed them personally. Some people have had knowledge about me that I cannot explain.
I have heard that it is important to consider these experiences like "pennies in the street". If you collect them, they still don't amount to much. I understand this because we can't truly grasp how it happens. I do know that the people one should avoid, are the ones who feel they have found the answers. Even more-so in an endeavor where there is never any proof.
It seems we have been left with what we have. We must not need the answer because we certainly don't have it.
Palzang