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.
Rebirth and past lives
I was wondering, I know in Buddhism, it's taught that there is no permanent you that goes from one incarnation to the other, but, I'm a bit confused about Rebirth, I've read that when the Buddha achieved Enlightenment, he developed various powers, one was to remember all of his past lives, but, I was just wondering, if there's no permanent you, how could your remember your past lives? (I hope that made some sense).
Thanks for any help.
David.
Thanks for any help.
David.
0
Comments
Hi David
I think that the super powers are probably much later addons:)
As I understand it when he was enlightened the change was about his knowledge and insight and wisdom, not his abilities to rain moon beams or see past lives.
Others think completely differently and we can never know who is right or even if there is a meaning to being "right" about such issues.
How do you think to answer your own question?
Mat
If there's no permanent you, how could you remember yesterday?
P
Based on what evidence?
P
I think the Buddhist was a materialist rationalist scientist skeptic and atheist who directed us against mysticism and the supernatural but discovering and teaching the middle path, but this is just my opinion and I may well be wrong:)
mat
When you remember yesterday, will that memory be the same next week, in a year in a decade.
Unless you have access to texts the rest of the world doesn't, you cannot possibly know that (Even if you yourself have experienced them).
For example, where would you have obtained all of the terms you write about, such as "Dependent Origination"?
Whilst many people such as myself are happy to read the texts, you spend your time writing your own texts on internet blogs.
The impression gained is the texts are competition against you.
As for supernormal powers, I personally know enough beings with supernormal powers. As such, I have no doubts the Buddha had such supernormal powers.
Most of all, as a person who cherishes honesty & truthfulness, I have no doubts the monks in the past who reported & preserved the texts cherished honesty & truthfulness.
However, that the Buddha used supernormal to see actual "past lives" is another matter.
The supernormal powers I am referring to are reading minds, transmitting thoughts, ability to see and hear things in distant places, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WZvlCwkYjE
:smilec:
So there was no Buddhism for 500 years after the death of the buddha when they first made texts?
So there was no Buddhim for the 50 years Buddha taught dharma?
Maybe there wasn't.
Buddha, Dharmam and Sanga
That's great:) You clearly move in different circles to me DD
I assume such claims are illusions or delusions, and we knows what we should do with those.
Mat
:smilec:
But more so, the current texts are perfectly reliable.
The more you disparage the texts, the more you declare to the world your mind's lack of enlightenment.
What is there to criticise about most of the texts?
They are so repetitive and are just about freeing the mind from 'self-view'.
If one does not have conviction in freeing the mind from 'self-view' ends suffering then naturally one will doubt the texts.
But a stream-enterer is free from such doubts.
:smilec:
I also have experience of people with supernormal powers. To give an example of just one of them... if someone is able to read my mind and has told me what I've been thinking, or answers my thoughts with a continuing conversation, then there are no illusions or delusions taking place - its something which is actually happening.
.
.
:smilec:
I really dont care about my "Enlightenment status" its meaningless to me. It clearly means lots to you being a Level 20 buddhist.
Dharma is my life of thought and practice. I am not aiming for level 20. Frankly, I think its a myth:)
I don't criticise the texts, I doubt and question their:
1) Authenticity
2) Accuracy
3) Content
4) Motive
If repetition satisfies your mind that's great, it does't mine. (I am very warey of it, eg Bernays's principles.)
You may have the words DD but your just passing on doctrine as authentic, I reject your dogma but I will try to respect it:)
So may be a Born again "faithhead":)
Mat
Try sticking to the topic.
In Indian, most religions and philosophies are a 'dharma'.
That which is entailed by the Three Marks and conditions all experience, Buddhadharma. That which is contained fully in the Four Noble Truths. That which was discovered by the Buddha and taught by The Buddha. That which I simply cannot doubt no matter how hard I try.
Have you done that DD? Tried to rip apart your understanding of dharma, question it, disprove it, accept none of it as certain?
:buck:
Hi David
There are different ways to explain these contradictions.
However, what is important is for each person to define for themselve what they wish to believe.
Buddhism has teachings for believers in rebirth & non-believers in rebirth.
It is best not to place a rigid definition upon Buddhism because Buddhism is basically about methods to remedy suffering.
Kind regards
DD
I am very far from blind faith
Have you done that DD? Tried to rip apart your understanding of dharma, question it, disprove it, accept none of it as certain?
Here is a text spoken to a Brahmin about past lives: We can observe the Buddha did not use supernormal powers to recollect his past lives. The Buddha only used supernormal powers to understand the karma of other beings.
So to answer your question "No".
Here is another text the Buddha spoke to monks about recollecting past lives. The emphasis here upon what is a "past life" [lit: 'previous dwellings'] is different. Here, something more subtle & profound is discussed.
Because it might be illusion?
because it might be inconsistent with some other principle?
Errr....
Question DO, karma, conditionality, mentality, ontology and all of the connections between.
There we have it:)
have fun
Mat
Whilst very rare, there are texts that state the Buddha or certain monks had past lives, such as here:
:smilec:
The Buddha said seeing DO, one sees the Dhamma.
What is there to question about ignorance at sense contact that leads to suffering?
It is to be extinguished or abandoned rather than questioned.
:hohum:
You remember past lives as you remember yesterday, last year, early childhood etc. Were you as a baby the same as you are today and will you be the same say 40 years from now? Are your thoughts, feelings, perceptions and form the same then as now?
There is also blind scepticism.:p
P
But regardless of what powers were involved the Buddha did recall his own past lives and those of other creatures. According to the suttas. Another example which undermines the case of those who want to dismiss rebirth.
P
Porpoise
Obviously, you did not take the time to read one of the suttas I posted.
I will post again.
Generally, when practitioners gains some level of enlightenment or empty mind, their mind regards itself as empty of self.
But when a practitioner thinks back to the past, say when they were a child, they generally will not regard their childhood experiences as emptiness.
So the Buddha is saying here when one recollects the past, instead of thinking "I was a great sportsman when I was a child", one should see with wisdom: "Childhood was merely the functioning of the five aggregates and was emptiness also, just like now".
But such a person can just say that those references are later additions added by the same old authorities that have mystified all world religions.
If you Belive the suttras without questioning them you are ignorant of their reality.
Mat
Trying to assert the texts have no validity is improper ettiquette, imo.
A Buddhist chat site is for discussing the "Buddhism" we have rather than spending our time trying to creating "authority" by "debunking the texts".
The texts are Buddhism and we are here to discuss their meanings, merits & purposes.
If by "buddhism" you mean the dominate religion that grew, under the guidance of hundreds of men over hundreds of years, from the teachings of the buddha then yes.
But dont be naive in thinking this is what the buddha discovered and taught and nothing else. Thats a preposterous position..
I am not interested in that buddhism, I am interested in dharma, that which was around before the buddha at every point in all universes.
They have validity to me, as guidesm suggestions, hints, clues, echos of the teahcings ofn the buddha.
I am not that interested in your view of ettiquette because what you are saying is "dont question my precious suttas".
ettiquette is a tool of controll to subdjugate and divide.
If you dont wish me to question your precious views simply don't start saying I am wrong, as you did in this and other threads. You started dogmatiseing me, remember:)
There is no buddhist authority, that is my entire point. You wish there to be one, but when you try to defend it its clear to me that its bogus and a little worrying.
I am here to disucss the teachings and discoveries of the buddha, the texts clearly help with this but to me they are in no sense authentic nor does it matter if they are or not.
there would be dharma without buddhist texts.
I suggest if you dont want to discuss their authenticity etc then dont start in such disucssions.
Easy!
Thanks
mat
Dear Mat and DD,
I respect both of you very much and have learned a lot from each of you.
Matsalted, you seem like a materialist, rationalist, atheist type of Buddhist - you question and deconstruct everything and your emphasis is on the rational. That is great and you have made a wonderful home within the Dhamma.
DD, it seems as though the supernatural elements are more important to you and that too has beauty - for there to be magic it must first be created in consciousness. The Dhamma also embraces you.
I am reminded of the argument amongst Christians as to whether Jesus actually performed any miracles or rather was always speaking allegorically. My belief is that Christianity can accept both parties but usually the parties cannot accept each other.
Maybe I'm out of line... I hope I have not irritated 2 people I respect.
Blessings,
Bagg
Thanks for the post:)
Absolutly, and moreover I think the Buddha was a rationalist too:) If you look at the ontological foundations of dharma you can see that whoever discovered those truths had a very rational mind.
I have zero problem with DD's view, It isn't my view. I have zero problem with anyones view, a good offline friend is a Baptist minister, I think many of his view are nuts, he probably does mine.
Arguemnts arise when one tries to convince somone else they are wrong, as DD repeatedly does to me and others.
That's dogma, and if it comes my way I will resit it, as so I should.
I read things people say here and think "thats nuts" but i dont jump in and attack, I may state my view but often I am attacked by dogma and always I resist.
As I posted here yesterday:
I keep having these cycles here where the forum dukka escalates and peeks and then calms down. They are getting less but still its very easy to see my ego and other egos doing their bad juju on me.
Peace out,
Mat
Thanks for all the information and links, I'll definitely read them with interest, and try and understand it more
David.