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.
Many thanks for your reply Zidangus.
I've read many of your posts and I've found them all well worth reading.
Cheers!
Thanks to you too, Pine Blossom, your words are appreciated. Many thanks!
>this is not just a blind faith but a faith that has a foundation on logic
Many religions were founded at a time where most people thought the earth was flat. Soon afterwards they found out it was round, they then believed the sun revolved around the earth.
<O:p</O:p
Theories, even if based on logic can be found to be wrong in application.
<O:p</O:p
> a lot of our Lord Buddhas teachings require you to have faith in their truth, without any concrete evidence that they are actually true.
<O:p</O:p
Allow me to admit to my newness, I have been reading from texts and learning from speakers and they have been encouraging to question everything around as it’s a part of staying rooted in a very chaotic world and a part of detaching from what can cause suffering. To accept that ‘nothing is permanent’, as the saying goes.
Too see everything 'as it is' in reality, not with a personal positive or negative filter.
My job is somewhat involved in theorizing and providing concrete results for that theory. I can now read my ego has been too committed to theory.. and once it’s been disproved, I have been quite emotional in the past. This is one of my sufferings I’m trying to work through.
<O:p</O:p
Keeping that in mind, it’s just really hard for me to register to just believe something with no concrete evidence while at the same time, being told to have the ego stay un-attached and to open my eyes to reality.. It feels as though I’m being told two different things. <O:p</O:p
>if your meditation is deep enough you can remember too
this one confuses me too... I've often imagined stories I've read in books on history during medidation.
I would not read too much into that..such fantasies is my mind getting bored and wondering around to keep itself amused during meditation. (I regard such sessions as poorly done meditation)
Isn't the mind wondering mean that the mind is not at rest and it's a sign of doing medidation incorrectly? Isn't medidation supposed to be correct when you are in the full moment of the present?
Isn't the mind wondering mean that the mind is not at rest and it's a sign of doing medidation incorrectly? Isn't medidation supposed to be correct when you are in the full moment of the present?
Yes, meditation is calming the mind. The longer you stay in the present moment, the more powerful the mind becomes. Ajahn Chah said something along the lines of: "If you want a powerful body then exercise it. If you want a powerful mind then keep it still".
Stillness = Samadhi
Samadhi can be used for virtually anything. Remembering past lives can be done if the mind is still enough.
You don't remember past lives while developing Samadhi, but once Samadhi reaches a certain point you can use it to remember past lives. This is not a very good simile but it's the best I could think of - it is a little bit like filling up your petrol tank so you can drive to your childhood home. You don't fill up the tank while you are driving, but you need to fill it up in order to drive there.
Nirvana,
If you are implying that I am implying this, then you missed the point of my post. I was just pointing out that if rebirth is true then good people not only have a good life now, but will have a good future life too. I am sure there are plenty of people who are happy to be a good person now for the sake of peace in this lifetime (good for them!), but if rebirth is true (which I am convinced that it is) then their good kamma will lead to a good rebirth. Bonus!
I am sorry I misread you, Guy. I see now, in hindsight, that I should have directed this to Zindangus. However, I don't see the contradiction in Post 5 that you alluded to in Post 33.
I do not see how whiterabbit's assertion that self-serving acts aimed at a future reward were essentially bad karma could contradict whiterabbit's idea that (nondescript/disinterested) acts aimed at "the good" were pregnant with a goodness that would return unto oneself —regardless of any thought of future lives or reincarnation.
Whiterabbit concludes: Thus, consideration of the present life is the only necessary justification for good acts.
You questioned in such a way that I could not follow. Sorry.
No problem, I think it is the nature of message board communication for this to happen.
I do not see how whiterabbit's assertion that self-serving acts aimed at a future reward were essentially bad karma could contradict whiterabbit's idea that (nondescript/disinterested) acts aimed at "the good" were pregnant with a goodness that would return unto oneself —regardless of any thought of future lives or reincarnation.
That may have been the way you read it, but I (perhaps mis)read it to mean that consideration of the "present" life (which is still thinking about the future, only in a one lifetime framework) is all that is needed to make good decisions.
The point I was trying to make was that we can make decisions because we think its going to give us a good future and that it is the same logic regardless of the framework (this life or future lives) that we apply it to. Neither framework is inherently more or less selfish than the other.
Why is thinking about the future in this life (e.g. studying, finding a good career, saving money) any more right/correct/skilful/wholesome/whatever than thinking about the future both in this life and any future lives?
This question is aimed at whiterabbit, but feel free to answer it.
Azikil:
how exactly do you determine the difference between a wandering mind making up fantasy and past life remembering?
There are 2 reasons why these memories are believed to be real:
1) There is no (or very little) doubt in the mind of the person who has these memories that "that was 'me' in a past life". When I say 'me' I am aware that the 5 khandhas are not-self, but I use it in the same conventional sense that we can remember that 'I' ate breakfast earlier today. You can identify that there is a causal link between the khandhas doing the remembering and those khandhas that are remembered.
2) Clarity of these memories can be as real as if you were right back there experiencing it. Do we question whether we are imagining things when we can clearly remember the bowl of cheerios we had for breakfast?
These reasons alone may not be convincing and you could argue that someone who hallucinates may, at the time, believe what they see is real. This is true, and the outsider shouldn't just believe these things based on the word of another.
There are two reasons why outsider's should consider that these may in fact be real past life memories:
1) Because of the similarities describing the process of death and dying described by so many people from all over the world with different cultural backgrounds, upbringing, education, beliefs, etc. One example: A lot of people, both those who claim to remember past lives and those who have NDE's, describe seeing a bright light at the moment of death. This in itself is not good enough proof though to an outsider.
2) Perhaps the most convincing reason: One could also remember names, addresses, dates associated with that past life. Then, they can go and check the historical records and see if they can verify anything they have (or believe they have) remembered. If there is a match in details between memory and history then it may be true. The more details which can be remembered and verified, the more convincing a case becomes. However, this also is not enough to convince an outsider.
Probably the only way to end doubts about this is to remember a past life and then check for historical matches yourself. If you still remain unconvinced after doing so then I don't know what to suggest.
No problem, I think it is the nature of message board communication for this to happen.
That may have been the way you read it, but I (perhaps mis)read it to mean that consideration of the "present" life (which is still thinking about the future, only in a one lifetime framework) is all that is needed to make good decisions.
The point I was trying to make was that we can make decisions because we think its going to give us a good future and that it is the same logic regardless of the framework (this life or future lives) that we apply it to. Neither framework is inherently more or less selfish than the other.
Why is thinking about the future in this life (e.g. studying, finding a good career, saving money) any more right/correct/skilful/wholesome/whatever than thinking about the future both in this life and any future lives?
This question is aimed at whiterabbit, but feel free to answer it.
Azikil:
There are 2 reasons why these memories are believed to be real:
1) There is no (or very little) doubt in the mind of the person who has these memories that "that was 'me' in a past life". When I say 'me' I am aware that the 5 khandhas are not-self, but I use it in the same conventional sense that we can remember that 'I' ate breakfast earlier today. You can identify that there is a causal link between the khandhas doing the remembering and those khandhas that are remembered.
2) Clarity of these memories can be as real as if you were right back there experiencing it. Do we question whether we are imagining things when we can clearly remember the bowl of cheerios we had for breakfast?
These reasons alone may not be convincing and you could argue that someone who hallucinates may, at the time, believe what they see is real. This is true, and the outsider shouldn't just believe these things based on the word of another.
There are two reasons why outsider's should consider that these may in fact be real past life memories:
1) Because of the similarities describing the process of death and dying described by so many people from all over the world with different cultural backgrounds, upbringing, education, beliefs, etc. One example: A lot of people, both those who claim to remember past lives and those who have NDE's, describe seeing a bright light at the moment of death. This in itself is not good enough proof though to an outsider.
2) Perhaps the most convincing reason: One could also remember names, addresses, dates associated with that past life. Then, they can go and check the historical records and see if they can verify anything they have (or believe they have) remembered. If there is a match in details between memory and history then it may be true. The more details which can be remembered and verified, the more convincing a case becomes. However, this also is not enough to convince an outsider.
Probably the only way to end doubts about this is to remember a past life and then check for historical matches yourself. If you still remain unconvinced after doing so then I don't know what to suggest.
I don't think their will ever be any overwhelming proof that rebirth is a real phenomena. But at the same time there is no overwhelming proof that is does'nt exist. Thus it requires a leap of faith based on the foundation of logic to believe in rebirth. I do believe in it, because well to be honest it just seems logical to me that a life force would be conserved in the universe just as every thing else in the universe is conserved in one way or another.
You need some faith to take a step forward into practice which you've only the word of someone else to go on (irregardless of the reliability and validity of the word). However, that faith is not necessarily blind or submissive faith - it is fueled by some sense of confidence in your own abilities, and of your past experience. Much in the same way as it's difficult to really get going on the path of practice because someone said it's "pretty cool, man" rather once you've been motivated enough by your own experience and observation of suffering to want to do something about it.
There's some pali or sanskrit word that translates this, but is often translated straight as "faith".
That may have been the way you read it, but I (perhaps mis)read it to mean that consideration of the "present" life (which is still thinking about the future, only in a one lifetime framework) is all that is needed to make good decisions.
Sir, I took whiterabbit to be referring to our ultimate future reward, rightly or wrongly. As I read him, whiterabbit did not seem to be referring to consideration of the rewards of the present life (as he did not mention that word), but only to consideration of our acts during our present life. At least that's the way it came across to me.
It is my opinion that to consider future reward as the sole basis for good acts/good karma is bad karma in and of itself.
Good acts propagate and return to the self in this lifetime, irregardless of any future lives/reincarnations. Thus, consideration of the present life is the only necessary justification for good acts.
I read nothing more into this last sentence than those things that right consideration of our present life would entail. Those things would vary for different people, but would have to include responsibility —which encompasses both the ability to see things clearly and to respond aptly. In other words, being given a human birth is reward enough. We have already been given the Estate.
Guy, you ask:
Why is thinking about the future in this life (e.g. studying, finding a good career, saving money) any more right/correct/skilful/wholesome/whatever than thinking about the future both in this life and any future lives?
Again, I don't think Whiterabbit was saying all this, Guy. I think he was just trying to point out that afterworldmen's morality is not very pure or noble.
Whiterabbit aside, though, I think one could argue that too much preoccupation with one's own interests in this life or any other life is neither spiritually or emotionally healthy. The lives of those around us and in other countries where we can help are important, too. Getting involved with others and building real communion with them —whether across the street, across the miles and continents or across the corridors of time— builds a richer future for all.
You need some faith to take a step forward into practice which you've only the word of someone else to go on (irregardless of the reliability and validity of the word). However, that faith is not necessarily blind or submissive faith - it is fueled by some sense of confidence in your own abilities, and of your past experience. Much in the same way as it's difficult to really get going on the path of practice because someone said it's "pretty cool, man" rather once you've been motivated enough by your own experience and observation of suffering to want to do something about it.
There's some pali or sanskrit word that translates this, but is often translated straight as "faith".
Thanks, Jason. I've been trying to find that word for a while! I'm having some issues understanding the term and its application, but that's another story...
In regards to the current thread: I don't necessarily agree with the fact that to be a buddhist one "must" "believe" in rebirth - that just seems to be an argument for dogmatic surrender.
However, to horribly paraphrase, the possibility exists because as 'conditioned things come into being as a result of other conditions, and when those conditions cease, so too does the conditioned thing'. Irregardless, this in itself is a reason for 'ethical' behaviour - if you want to experience an ethical, 'good' life, then it follows that you need to set up the conditions for it to come about.
Behaving ethically is the right thing to do and it also brings rewards in the present moment and life in terms of a clean conscience and the ability to be at peace with oneself and the world in general. That's a pretty huge reward all by itself.
That's what I was gonna say. Good points.
Having a clean conscience is worth a lot. It feels really good to just know that you didn't wrong someone. Doing the right thing and not hurting anyone brings about a kind of peace that nothing else can.
However, to horribly paraphrase, the possibility exists because as 'conditioned things come into being as a result of other conditions, and when those conditions cease, so too does the conditioned thing'.
And the mind being a conditioned thing comes about by the transformation of chemical energy derived from food into electrical potential, stop the influx of chemical energy by death of the body, the electric potential dissapates and the conditioned thing, the mind, can no longer be sustained.
If people can understand comparable processes, such as a flame extinguishing when it runs out of fuel or oxygen, or a river disappearing when the source dries up, if they can appreciate that these phenomena haven't ascended into the ether to be reborn on another candle or in another country, why is the mind any different?
Comments
I've read many of your posts and I've found them all well worth reading.
Cheers!
Thanks to you too, Pine Blossom, your words are appreciated. Many thanks!
Metta to all sentient beings
Many religions were founded at a time where most people thought the earth was flat. Soon afterwards they found out it was round, they then believed the sun revolved around the earth.
<O:p</O:p
Theories, even if based on logic can be found to be wrong in application.
<O:p</O:p
> a lot of our Lord Buddhas teachings require you to have faith in their truth, without any concrete evidence that they are actually true.
<O:p</O:p
Allow me to admit to my newness, I have been reading from texts and learning from speakers and they have been encouraging to question everything around as it’s a part of staying rooted in a very chaotic world and a part of detaching from what can cause suffering. To accept that ‘nothing is permanent’, as the saying goes.
Too see everything 'as it is' in reality, not with a personal positive or negative filter.
My job is somewhat involved in theorizing and providing concrete results for that theory. I can now read my ego has been too committed to theory.. and once it’s been disproved, I have been quite emotional in the past. This is one of my sufferings I’m trying to work through.
<O:p</O:p
Keeping that in mind, it’s just really hard for me to register to just believe something with no concrete evidence while at the same time, being told to have the ego stay un-attached and to open my eyes to reality.. It feels as though I’m being told two different things.
Good luck with that.
Or should I ask what you remember about yours?
All HHDL could remember was where his false teeth were in the Summer Palace.
I was either Van Gogh or Kierkegaard.
Just sayin'.
this one confuses me too... I've often imagined stories I've read in books on history during medidation.
I would not read too much into that..such fantasies is my mind getting bored and wondering around to keep itself amused during meditation. (I regard such sessions as poorly done meditation)
Isn't the mind wondering mean that the mind is not at rest and it's a sign of doing medidation incorrectly? Isn't medidation supposed to be correct when you are in the full moment of the present?
Yes, meditation is calming the mind. The longer you stay in the present moment, the more powerful the mind becomes. Ajahn Chah said something along the lines of: "If you want a powerful body then exercise it. If you want a powerful mind then keep it still".
Stillness = Samadhi
Samadhi can be used for virtually anything. Remembering past lives can be done if the mind is still enough.
You don't remember past lives while developing Samadhi, but once Samadhi reaches a certain point you can use it to remember past lives. This is not a very good simile but it's the best I could think of - it is a little bit like filling up your petrol tank so you can drive to your childhood home. You don't fill up the tank while you are driving, but you need to fill it up in order to drive there.
I am sorry I misread you, Guy. I see now, in hindsight, that I should have directed this to Zindangus. However, I don't see the contradiction in Post 5 that you alluded to in Post 33.
I do not see how whiterabbit's assertion that self-serving acts aimed at a future reward were essentially bad karma could contradict whiterabbit's idea that (nondescript/disinterested) acts aimed at "the good" were pregnant with a goodness that would return unto oneself —regardless of any thought of future lives or reincarnation.
Whiterabbit concludes: Thus, consideration of the present life is the only necessary justification for good acts.
You questioned in such a way that I could not follow. Sorry.
N
No problem, I think it is the nature of message board communication for this to happen.
That may have been the way you read it, but I (perhaps mis)read it to mean that consideration of the "present" life (which is still thinking about the future, only in a one lifetime framework) is all that is needed to make good decisions.
The point I was trying to make was that we can make decisions because we think its going to give us a good future and that it is the same logic regardless of the framework (this life or future lives) that we apply it to. Neither framework is inherently more or less selfish than the other.
Why is thinking about the future in this life (e.g. studying, finding a good career, saving money) any more right/correct/skilful/wholesome/whatever than thinking about the future both in this life and any future lives?
This question is aimed at whiterabbit, but feel free to answer it.
Azikil:
There are 2 reasons why these memories are believed to be real:
1) There is no (or very little) doubt in the mind of the person who has these memories that "that was 'me' in a past life". When I say 'me' I am aware that the 5 khandhas are not-self, but I use it in the same conventional sense that we can remember that 'I' ate breakfast earlier today. You can identify that there is a causal link between the khandhas doing the remembering and those khandhas that are remembered.
2) Clarity of these memories can be as real as if you were right back there experiencing it. Do we question whether we are imagining things when we can clearly remember the bowl of cheerios we had for breakfast?
These reasons alone may not be convincing and you could argue that someone who hallucinates may, at the time, believe what they see is real. This is true, and the outsider shouldn't just believe these things based on the word of another.
There are two reasons why outsider's should consider that these may in fact be real past life memories:
1) Because of the similarities describing the process of death and dying described by so many people from all over the world with different cultural backgrounds, upbringing, education, beliefs, etc. One example: A lot of people, both those who claim to remember past lives and those who have NDE's, describe seeing a bright light at the moment of death. This in itself is not good enough proof though to an outsider.
2) Perhaps the most convincing reason: One could also remember names, addresses, dates associated with that past life. Then, they can go and check the historical records and see if they can verify anything they have (or believe they have) remembered. If there is a match in details between memory and history then it may be true. The more details which can be remembered and verified, the more convincing a case becomes. However, this also is not enough to convince an outsider.
Probably the only way to end doubts about this is to remember a past life and then check for historical matches yourself. If you still remain unconvinced after doing so then I don't know what to suggest.
Metta to all sentient beings
You need some faith to take a step forward into practice which you've only the word of someone else to go on (irregardless of the reliability and validity of the word). However, that faith is not necessarily blind or submissive faith - it is fueled by some sense of confidence in your own abilities, and of your past experience. Much in the same way as it's difficult to really get going on the path of practice because someone said it's "pretty cool, man" rather once you've been motivated enough by your own experience and observation of suffering to want to do something about it.
There's some pali or sanskrit word that translates this, but is often translated straight as "faith".
Sir, I took whiterabbit to be referring to our ultimate future reward, rightly or wrongly. As I read him, whiterabbit did not seem to be referring to consideration of the rewards of the present life (as he did not mention that word), but only to consideration of our acts during our present life. At least that's the way it came across to me.
I read nothing more into this last sentence than those things that right consideration of our present life would entail. Those things would vary for different people, but would have to include responsibility —which encompasses both the ability to see things clearly and to respond aptly. In other words, being given a human birth is reward enough. We have already been given the Estate.
Guy, you ask:
Why is thinking about the future in this life (e.g. studying, finding a good career, saving money) any more right/correct/skilful/wholesome/whatever than thinking about the future both in this life and any future lives?
Again, I don't think Whiterabbit was saying all this, Guy. I think he was just trying to point out that afterworldmen's morality is not very pure or noble.
Whiterabbit aside, though, I think one could argue that too much preoccupation with one's own interests in this life or any other life is neither spiritually or emotionally healthy. The lives of those around us and in other countries where we can help are important, too. Getting involved with others and building real communion with them —whether across the street, across the miles and continents or across the corridors of time— builds a richer future for all.
Yes, the Pali term is saddha.
In regards to the current thread: I don't necessarily agree with the fact that to be a buddhist one "must" "believe" in rebirth - that just seems to be an argument for dogmatic surrender.
However, to horribly paraphrase, the possibility exists because as 'conditioned things come into being as a result of other conditions, and when those conditions cease, so too does the conditioned thing'. Irregardless, this in itself is a reason for 'ethical' behaviour - if you want to experience an ethical, 'good' life, then it follows that you need to set up the conditions for it to come about.
That's what I was gonna say. Good points.
Having a clean conscience is worth a lot. It feels really good to just know that you didn't wrong someone. Doing the right thing and not hurting anyone brings about a kind of peace that nothing else can.
If people can understand comparable processes, such as a flame extinguishing when it runs out of fuel or oxygen, or a river disappearing when the source dries up, if they can appreciate that these phenomena haven't ascended into the ether to be reborn on another candle or in another country, why is the mind any different?