Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

How to prove reincarnation/rebirth?

I have been thinking about this. How can we
prove it scientifically ?

We cant film it. We cant trace the molecules.

Any suggestions?
«1

Comments

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    I think if it could be done with the methods we have currently, it would have been done already. I don't think there is a way to prove it unequivocally. The only thing we can trace is the memories, if they are there, and try to verify their historical accuracy, and that most certainly isn't a fool proof method. Just think of the uproar that would happen in the world if it were proven, without a doubt. Sometimes, I think there are reasons why these things are unprovable.
  • edited April 2013
    hermitwin said:

    I have been thinking about this. How can we
    prove it scientifically ?

    We cant film it. We cant trace the molecules.

    Any suggestions?

    What you mean to say is: Rebirth cannot be perceived directly. True, but perception is not the only form of evidence. There is also inference. Based on available data, we can infer certain things even if those things remain unseen.
    personnenkohai
  • BhanteLuckyBhanteLucky Alternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New Zealand New Zealand Veteran
    Yeah, case studies like what Ian Stevenson did; finding a recent case, finding the supposed previous family, and test the accuracy of the reported statements by the child.
    Repeat that hundreds of times with different cases, different researchers, thorough oversight, and you'd start to build up a serious body of data.

    Remember science is about a method, not just measuring with gadgets. It can be done just as validly with paper and interviews and peer review.
    lobsterperson
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    music said:

    hermitwin said:

    I have been thinking about this. How can we
    prove it scientifically ?

    We cant film it. We cant trace the molecules.

    Any suggestions?

    What you mean to say is: Rebirth cannot be perceived directly. True, but perception is not the only form of evidence. There is also inference. Based on available data, we can infer certain things even if those things remain unseen.
    But he's not asking about inferences. He's asking about proof.

    As Karasti said, if it could be proven at this time, it would have been.

    While I don't think it's an imponderable, I do think it's frivolous chatter...although I have no problem with frivolity...to a degree.

  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    I think a lot of the challenge comes in getting accurate details from a child young enough to have memories. When you get into older people you have to rely on hypnosis and dreams and other such things which just do not have a sound basis in science. For science to accept it, it has to be able to be duplicated and with such a thing you can build up many case studies, but because it cannot be predicted or followed in any sense, duplicating it as per scientific method is almost impossible.

    For me personally, 2 of my 3 kids have made several statements that lead me to lean towards the truth of rebirth/reincarnation, at least in some form. It's not simply the words they say, but the look on their face, the dawning in their eyes of experiencing something they don't even have the vocabulary or cultural knowledge for, but there it appears out of no where. But none of it is traceable or followable or duplicable. (is that a word? LOL)
  • Why do you want to?
    riverflowpegembaranenkohai
  • DaftChrisDaftChris Spiritually conflicted. Not of this world. Veteran
    edited April 2013

    Yeah, case studies like what Ian Stevenson did; finding a recent case, finding the supposed previous family, and test the accuracy of the reported statements by the child.
    Repeat that hundreds of times with different cases, different researchers, thorough oversight, and you'd start to build up a serious body of data.

    Remember science is about a method, not just measuring with gadgets. It can be done just as validly with paper and interviews and peer review.

    Agreed. That's pretty much all one can do.

    Also, keep in mind that science doesn't "prove" anything @hermitwin; rather it provides evidence by means of testing and other methods. There is plenty of evidence for reincarnation (such as Ian Stevenson, as mentioned) and it is up to the individual to decide whether or not it is valid.
  • zenffzenff Veteran
    Get thousands of three and four year old children and have them interviewed by trained interviewers. They would have to work according to a list of questions that doesn’t lead the kids too much and that doesn’t supply them with information. Extract from all the nonsense that these kids produce all the verifiable data they supply on their previous lives and check the facts.
    Maybe find a way (I don’t know yet how) to eliminate the data the kids have picked up from their parents or from TV.
    Think about good criteria for qualifying data as correct.

    Compare the result with the amount of correct data that is found in a collection of random facts.

    The question is: do we find more correct facts in the information the kids spontaneously produce than we find in random facts?

    (I'm an amateur. A professional scientist could make a better plan for this research.)
  • It can be done. Reincarnation is not verifiable or even relevant apart from the superstitious aspects of Buddhism, of which there are plenty. Science does not prove astrology does not work, because it has better use for its time and resources. Science also does not waste time disproving Buddhist Cosmology
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

    You will die. Prefer fantasy? Then dream on . . .
    http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

    . . . looking forward to remembering my past lives . . . or not . . .
    zombiegirlnenkohai
  • Interesting question. According to the philosopher Kant, because we as humans are limited to what we can experience through the senses we have we can never be sure that there are no things beyond those senses which we have no experience of. To assume what we sense is all that exists is not only arrogant but foolish. A fish has no awareness of the smell of bacon but the bacon still exists nonetheless.

    Science can prove no more or less that what we can experience.
    nenkohaiVastmindSilouan
  • CheChe Veteran
    Believing is seeing
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    It's never good to try and get a specific outcome from a preconceived notion... it makes the results gained much more dubious. I do think that reincarnation/rebirth falls under the imponderables because there is no real proof of it. Better to just be unconcerned. As others have said, if concrete proof existed, I think we would have already found it.
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    edited April 2013
    Well, reincarnation as a theory can't be "proved" because there's no way to design a controlled test. Not even the Tibet custom of getting the child to identify objects is a valid test, because the monks who know the correct answer and want it to succeed are the ones conducting it.

    If enough children had detailed memories of a previous life that could be tracked down and verified and no obvious way they could have been coached from the adults around them, then that would be strong evidence for some sort of reincarnation. However, vague statements and overheard conversations followed by data mining and ignoring incorrect details to focus on chance hits are what we have now.

    How would you design a test for reincarnation? Get a whole bunch of people, give them a secret message and tell them in their next life to remember that and contact the researcher, then wait until they're reborn and grow up enough to follow instructions? The children written of in the books now can't even remember their own complete past names or the names of parents or past family like husband or children.

    Don't forget that when reincarnation was written about by early Buddhists, it wasn't just a few memories that was supposed to be inherited from your past life. The theory was supposed to explain how you acquired the color of your skin, birthmarks, deformities, and your entire personality. Today we have a better theory to explain most of that, and that's genetics, something completely unknown to people who had no concept of cells or DNA.
    Silouan
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    Even if there was accepted scientific proof, it would be of relatively little value. Because it wouldn't really change the mind that much. Not as much as a direct experience. The Buddha remembered his past lives and this day that's still possible. Some people, like those kids, do it naturally and some can do it via meditation. If you see it directly, it will have much more value than any scientific proof can.
    riverflowSilouan
  • Things aren't true because we can prove them; we can prove them because they are true.
    nenkohaiChe
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    Its a hidden object that cannot be perceived by ordinary means, Once the mind is very clear it becomes manifest, For example look for Buddha in the Sutra's recounting his previous lives.
  • From my investigations I'd say that most of Buddhist doctrine can be proved in logic and metaphysics. But try as I might I can't include rebirth in the calculations. My conclusion is that philosophical analysis cannot decide the rebirth question. The natural sciences certainly cannot decide it since they cannot even decide whether we have our current consciousness let alone a previous one.
  • Lazy_eyeLazy_eye Veteran
    edited April 2013
    I'm not sure if rebirth can be "proven". But better understanding the properties of consciousness might help strengthen one or the other side of the debate.

    If consciousness is just an attribute of the physical brain, then it becomes hard to argue for rebirth -- because there is no logical explanation or mechanism. When the brain dies, consciousness dies with it. End of story. There's no possibility of genuinely recalling past lives because there is no mechanism that could store those memories.

    But not everyone agrees with a physicalist explanation of consciousness. There may be other explanations, some of which allow for the possibility of rebirth.

    I think that's why there's so much interest in NDE (Near Death Experience) research. Personally, I find these cases unconvincing, but it's easy to see why they attract attention. If it ever could be shown conclusively that mind can survive independently of the physical brain, then scientific objections to an "next life" or "afterlife" would disappear. A non-physicalist explanation of consciousness combined with research similar to Stevenson's could add up to a strong case for rebirth.

    On the other hand, if neuroscience is able to solve the "hard problem" of consciousness, then rebirth will probably have to be thrown out along with all other religious conceptions of an afterlife.





    personzenff
  • Searching for any sort of metaphysical substance (i.e. which is a reified, permanent "essence" or "soul") that survives the death of the body seems misguided to me, certainly in light of anatta. Reincarnation implies this metaphysical substance. Rebirth does not. To me this is all barking up the wrong tree.

    There is continuation, but this continuity is not "me," it is not "mine"-- this would require a fixed definition of who "I" am. There is no metaphysical substance which is annihilated nor is there a metaphysical substance which exists eternally. All this seems to me to be seeking after some sort of fixed metaphysical substance when there is none to find.
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    zenff said:

    Get thousands kids in a collider and fire them in circles with nearly the speed of light. When they collide, look for the very small (currently only hypothetical) particles which carry their karma and their memories to another life.

    Find the karma-particle in the Large-Baby-Collider.

    LOL we have one of these that captures the neutrinos just 25 miles from my house. We could make this happen.
  • Things aren't true because we can prove them; we can prove them because they are true.

    Which is not to say that all things that are true are prove-able (which I don't think you are saying this @lamaramadindong. Let me know if I'm mistaken on that.).

    There are universes of truth outside our ability to prove as true. That is a cornerstone to my belief system.

    So, to me, reincarnation may well fall into the category of "truth which is unprovable as true."

  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited April 2013
    In the 1960s Stevenson set a combination lock using a secret word or phrase, and placed it in a filing cabinet in the department, telling his colleagues he would try to pass the code to them after his death [in 2007]. Emily Williams Kelly told The New York Times: "Presumably, if someone had a vivid dream about him, in which there seemed to be a word or a phrase that kept being repeated—I don't quite know how it would work—if it seemed promising enough, we would try to open it using the combination suggested." The Times reported that, as of February 2007, the lock remains unopened.
    Of course, the overwhelming likelihood, given the purported reality of reincarnation and traditional Buddhist cosmology, is that he came back as a creature without the power of speech. :rolleyes:

    Also, his extant work does not constitute convincing evidence for reincarnation. From the same page:
    Champe Ransom, a lawyer Stevenson hired as an assistant in the 1970s, wrote an unpublished report cited by Edwards in his Immortality (1992) and Reincarnation (1996). According to Ransom, Stevenson asked the children leading questions, filled in gaps in the narrative, did not spend enough time interviewing them, and left too long a gap between the claimed recall and the interview (there was often a long gap between the recall and Stevenson learning about it). In only 11 of 1,111 cases Ransom looked at had there been no contact between the families of the deceased and of the child before the interview, and according to Ransom seven of those 11 cases were seriously flawed. He also wrote that there were problems with the way Stevenson presented the cases, in that he would report the conclusions of witnesses rather than the data those conclusions rested upon. Weaknesses in cases would be reported in a separate part of his books, instead of during the discussion of the cases themselves. Ransom concluded that it all amounted to anecdotal evidence of the weakest kind.
  • BonsaiDougBonsaiDoug Simply, on the path. Veteran
    "Proof?" Not sure it exists. I've just read an interesting book called "The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. An excellent read.
  • I read that too. It is indeed excellent.
  • We can realize that what is here right now in this room cannot be reduced to a bag of bloody saw dust. So reincarnation has nothing to do with progress and airtight theories.
    person
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    edited April 2013
    I see this is as being ultimately about one's own experience and how it makes sense on a personal level, but its not like getting bonked on the head with a physical apple but rather a subliminal orange. That is unless of course you are trying to negate the self and experience all together, and then it doesn't really matter. ;)

    Didn't the Buddha say something like be a light unto yourself? On one interpretive angle, other than the obvious, I see this as meaning you only have to prove it to yourself and to no one else.
    riverflow
  • edited April 2013
    vinlyn said:

    music said:

    hermitwin said:

    I have been thinking about this. How can we
    prove it scientifically ?

    We cant film it. We cant trace the molecules.

    Any suggestions?

    What you mean to say is: Rebirth cannot be perceived directly. True, but perception is not the only form of evidence. There is also inference. Based on available data, we can infer certain things even if those things remain unseen.
    But he's not asking about inferences. He's asking about proof.

    As Karasti said, if it could be proven at this time, it would have been.

    While I don't think it's an imponderable, I do think it's frivolous chatter...although I have no problem with frivolity...to a degree.

    The existence of dark matter is inferred from the gravitational pull. It is not - couldn't possibly be - an object of direct observation. This is because objects can be observed but phenomena can only be inferred. Rebirth is not an object that one can perceive the way we perceive sense objects. It is a process, so an inferential method is all we have.
    BonsaiDougperson
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    music said:



    The existence of dark matter is inferred from the gravitational pull. It is not - couldn't possibly be - an object of direct observation. This is because objects can be observed but phenomena can only be inferred.

    Inferences are not proof...and that is the subject of this thread.

    By definition, an inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions.

    But don't give me your claptrap. Just answer yes or no: Have you or has anyone else PROVEN reincarnation/rebirth. YES or NO.


  • karmablueskarmablues Veteran
    edited April 2013
    One is able to prove rebirth through concentration meditation. According to the Samannaphala Sutta, one can thereby attain the knowledge of one's own rebirth and also another person's future rebirth. The Buddha described the attainment of these knowledges as "fruit[s] of the contemplative life"

    Excerpts of the Buddha's teachings:

    [on recollecting one's own rebirth]

    ""With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details...."

    [on knowledge of another person's future rebirth]

    "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — he sees beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma...."

    However, many wise teachers caution against being motivated to practice meditation in order to attain these "higher knowledges". This is because it is not necessary to attain such knowledges for the purpose of enlightenment. Therefore, many teachers regard it as a waste of precious time and would advise that the focus be on obtaining insight after a sufficient degree of concentration has been attained. Also, even if one were to be able to attain the higher knowledges, there is a danger that one can confuse this with true enlightenment and stray off the path.

    As for scientific proof of rebirth, the studies about near death experiences seem interesting. A good read is the following Skeptico interview of Dr. Jeffrey Long, author of New York Time bestseller, "Evidence of the Afterlife" (2010).

    skeptiko.com/jeffrey_long_takes_on_critics_of_evidence_of_the_afterlife/
    person
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited April 2013
    In the end I think it will not matter much anyway, even if it was proven. Most minds will probably keep denying it.

    As an example, take free will. Science has a lot of evidence for there to be no free will. Still, do people who get faced with this evidence accept its implications? Most of the time, hell no. The mind will rebel, it doesn't want to accept it, so it doesn't. Out of self defense, it will just decide the proof isn't good enough, the results must be false, the test missed the real "free will", or it just ignores it, or whatever. I say the same will happen if rebirth is ever proven. Most minds will probably not accept no matter how convincing the arguments. And for the minds who do accept, it will only be on a theoretical level.

    So that takes me back to my previous statement and what others also said, we have to realize what is truth. The way the Buddha did it. Otherwise, it won't do much, it won't free the mind. Still, I do support scientific research on these subjects, but I see it's relative value.
    poptart
  • JohnGJohnG Veteran
    To those who believe, there is no need for proof. To those who do not, no proof can be found. :coffee:
    poptartCheDaftChris
  • No proof, but you can believe whatever you want to. To go beyond mere belief require some clear seeing. Thinking outside of the box as they say.

    Rebirth and reincarnation are different ideas.

    Reincarnation requires a separate and permanent you that does not truly exist except as an idea in your mind.

    On the other hand, rebirth can be seen as it is how you manifest in the present moment.

    It is the present moment that is eternal not the idea of you.

    The present moment is reborn. It arises (birth), sustains (life), and dies (cessation.) Always based on cause and conditions.

    When you see with increasing clarity that what you really are is pure awareness or consciousnesses. That the observer is the observed.

    Then belief is not so important. Worrying about the next life is not so important. This present moment is the next life.

    Best Wishes
    riverflowJeffrey
  • riverflow said:

    Searching for any sort of metaphysical substance (i.e. which is a reified, permanent "essence" or "soul") that survives the death of the body seems misguided to me, certainly in light of anatta. Reincarnation implies this metaphysical substance. Rebirth does not. To me this is all barking up the wrong tree.

    There is continuation, but this continuity is not "me," it is not "mine"-- this would require a fixed definition of who "I" am. There is no metaphysical substance which is annihilated nor is there a metaphysical substance which exists eternally. All this seems to me to be seeking after some sort of fixed metaphysical substance when there is none to find.

    This seems correct to me also. Nothing really exists etc.

    But the idea of rebirth does not actually require that we reify anything. Whatever is transmitted from life to life need not be reified, nor any underlying metaphysical substance. Some versions of rebirth would imply this but not all.

    One idea would be that what passes between lives, or what re-combine to cause new lives, are 'impressions', not so much phenomena in themselves as imperfections in some other phenomenon, like dents in the car bonnet or eddies in a stream. The stream, while being a phenomenon, need not be a metaphysical substance in the sense that you mean.

    But this is idle speculation. I'm pretty sure that this is one of those things that must be learnt the hard way or not at all.
  • riverflowriverflow Veteran
    edited April 2013
    Florian said:

    But the idea of rebirth does not actually require that we reify anything. Whatever is transmitted from life to life need not be reified, nor any underlying metaphysical substance. Some versions of rebirth would imply this but not all.

    One idea would be that what passes between lives, or what re-combine to cause new lives, are 'impressions', not so much phenomena in themselves as imperfections in some other phenomenon, like dents in the car bonnet or eddies in a stream. The stream, while being a phenomenon, need not be a metaphysical substance in the sense that you mean.

    Oh, no, no disagreement here. What you are saying makes perfect sense to me. I just think there is a world of difference between "reincarnation" and "rebirth" and I'm afraid they get conflated too often. Rebirth I understand and find useful in my own practice. Reincarnation on the other hand, seems to me just another metaphysical trap that makes no sense in light of anatta, dependent co-oringation, impermanence, emptiness, etc. etc.
  • hermitwin said:

    I have been thinking about this. How can we
    prove it scientifically ?

    We cant film it. We cant trace the molecules.

    Any suggestions?

    Maybe, one day the scientist would come up with an instrument. They put wires on your head and connect them to a screen where your past live will be played out like 'Matrix" being played out on the big screen. After watching it, you'd just walk out of the theatre and your life goes on. You probably would go on searching for the meaning of life.
  • JohnGJohnG Veteran
    And then what happens when the world learns of those very primative emotional faux pas we've all had in the past? Some more then others of course. :coffee:
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    'Reincarnation' is different to 'Rebirth'....

    Voltaire famously said "It should be no more surprising to be born twice as it is to be born once".

    I am constantly surprised by Life, so I await the surprises Death has in store for me, with bated breath.....
    riverflowshanyin
  • jlljll Veteran
    to quote ajahn brahm 'the buddhist concept of reincarnation
    is very close to the hindu one. the main difference is
    the hindus believe in an eternal soul while the buddhists dont.'
  • Prove rebirth? .
    The Buddha taught that rebirth is part of a process called dependent origination that its happening all the time. So it can be taken as "rebirth from life to life" or "rebirth from moment to moment", and thats where scientists can get their hands on..:)
  • BonsaiDougBonsaiDoug Simply, on the path. Veteran
    edited April 2013
    newtech said:


    The Buddha taught that rebirth is part of a process called dependent origination that its happening all the time. So it can be taken as "rebirth from life to life" or "rebirth from moment to moment", and thats where scientists can get their hands on..:)

    Wait. Did not The Buddha recount his own previous lives? Hundreds, thousands of them across eons of time. That surely sounds like life to life and not moment to moment.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    Yes, but as a Buddha he can do that.
    Buddha trumps non-buddha.
    Even the Dalai Lama can't remember what he was doing last thursday..... :D
  • newtech said:


    The Buddha taught that rebirth is part of a process called dependent origination that its happening all the time. So it can be taken as "rebirth from life to life" or "rebirth from moment to moment", and thats where scientists can get their hands on..:)

    Wait. Did not The Buddha recount his own previous lives? Hundreds, thousands of them across eons of time. That surely sounds like life to life and not moment to moment.
    It can be both life to life and moment to moment, not just one or the other.

    @riverflow - Yes, sorry, it seems we agree. I missed the distinction you made between rebirth and reincarnation.
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    edited April 2013

    newtech said:


    The Buddha taught that rebirth is part of a process called dependent origination that its happening all the time. So it can be taken as "rebirth from life to life" or "rebirth from moment to moment", and thats where scientists can get their hands on..:)

    Wait. Did not The Buddha recount his own previous lives? Hundreds, thousands of them across eons of time. That surely sounds like life to life and not moment to moment.
    People often say that to refute criticisms about literal reincarnation. You're referring to the Jataka, the massive collection of fables that supposedly recount a thousand or so of Buddha's past lives, each one a little parable with a pithy moral behind it. At the end of each parable, supposedly the Buddha tells us which of the characters was him in a previous life.

    If you want a fascinating window into the world where Buddha grew up, read some of these fables. However, would you argue that there really are evil witches living in gingerbread houses because it's in an ancient collection of stories? Because many scholars and educated Buddhists alike recognize the Jataka as a collection of fables put into a standard Buddhist teaching format for the illiterate and uneducated lay people. They are not be be taken literally at all.

    And before you jump on me, let's take one of the hundreds of lives pretty much at random. We'll pick life number 351.

    ...At that time a lion and a tiger lived in a mountain-cave in that forest. A jackal was in attendance on them, and living on theri broken meats began to wax gross of body. And one day he was struck with the thought, “I have never yet eaten the flesh of a lion or a tiger. I must set these two animals by the ears, and when in consequence of their quarrel they have come by their death. I will eat their flesh.” So he drew nigh to the lion and said, “Is there any quarrel, Sir, between you and the tiger?” “Why so, Sir?” “Your Reverence,” he said, “he ever speaks in your dispraise and says, ‘When I am gone, this lion will never attain to the sixteenth part of my personal beauty, nor of my stature and girth, nor of my natural strength and power.” Then the lion said to him, “Off with you. He will never speak thus of me.” Then the jackal drew nigh to the tiger also, and spoke after the same manner...

    It goes on to tell the story of the jackal trying to cause trouble between the tiger and the lion, but in the end the tiger apologizes to the lion, the jackal runs off, and a lesson about friendship is learned.

    And tacked onto the end of the story is Buddha saying the jackal was reborn as a beggar, the lion and tiger are now famous monks, and Buddha? He was a forest tree spirit who "saw the whole thing with my own eyes".

    Now really, the sutras are full of Buddha's past lives and those include talking animals and tree spirits and we are familiar with the format today as fables meant to instruct. Each story, like most of the thousands of sutras, claims to have been spoken from the Buddha's lips. So animals used to talk and have human intelligence and motivations? You can be reincarnated as a tree? And where are a tree's eyes located, for that matter?

    Certainly we can say from this that reincarnation was a widely held belief among Buddhists then and now. We can also say with certainty that the sutras have to be approached with discernment and intelligence, and not used as a sacred hammer to prove any belief because it's written somewhere in an ancient sutra. We have to ask ourselves, how does this sutra or statement or saying fit into the teaching of the Dharma as a whole? Is it central to the teaching, or is it something that monks were arguing about back then that isn't so important to us, or even something that fits into the other teachings of the Buddha?
    Silouanriverflow
  • BonsaiDougBonsaiDoug Simply, on the path. Veteran
    edited April 2013
    Is it [rebirth] central to the teaching, or is it something that monks were arguing about back then that isn't so important to us, or even something that fits into the other teachings of the Buddha?
    My assumption is that the discussion/debate/study/argument of this particular aspect will go on well into my next lives. :)

    But @Cinorjer, thanx for framing it so lucidly.
    riverflow
  • That is an excellent explanation @Cinorjer, and it precisely matches the way I see it as well.

    I would add that the Buddha was teaching to a people much attached to this notion of re-birth, and so used various expedient means to lead them to non-attachment of this view, but always respecting the various capacities of his listeners to understand.

    The person is the coming together of all the aggregates and this constitutes the being in a single lifetime and not that this is the body and this is the mind, as if two separate existing entities where the mind of a particular person manifests again in another form after escaping from the previous one.

    The Samsara the Buddha refers to occurs in the mind at a given moment as a manifestation of the preceding moment, and is directly linked to one's perception of the world and how one interacts with it. Nirvana is the end of this Samsaric re-birth of the mind, but it doesn't mean the person no longer exists or experiences either. The person continues to exist until they too must eventually pass.

    All things must pass. Such is the nature of life, and there is nothing wrong with it. Its the way its supposed to be.
    riverflow
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited April 2013
    Cinorjer said:

    newtech said:


    The Buddha taught that rebirth is part of a process called dependent origination that its happening all the time. So it can be taken as "rebirth from life to life" or "rebirth from moment to moment", and thats where scientists can get their hands on..:)

    Wait. Did not The Buddha recount his own previous lives? Hundreds, thousands of them across eons of time. That surely sounds like life to life and not moment to moment.
    People often say that to refute criticisms about literal reincarnation. You're referring to the Jataka, the massive collection of fables that supposedly recount a thousand or so of Buddha's past lives, each one a little parable with a pithy moral behind it. At the end of each parable, supposedly the Buddha tells us which of the characters was him in a previous life.
    Hi @Cinorjer

    It's not just in the Jatakas. The Buddha saying he recollected his past lives is in many places of the suttas, and him referring to literal rebirth in one way or the other is in even more. I'm aware that also that doesn't make it true automatically, but surely it can't be as easily dismissed as a 'fable'. Of course, I'm aware these are also just texts, and I always say don't take the texts as truths automatically - but I also think we should represent those texts as they are, whatever our own ideas are.

    I mean, texts such as the anapanasati and satipatthana sutta a lot of people (I'm not saying you, it's not meant personal :) ) take as very important and literal. They even get fiddly about single words or lines. But these suttas come from a book which discusses rebirth and past life memories like it is the most normal thing in the world, yet that's often overlooked or put aside. Give it your own judgement, but present the things as they are. Sure, I also get a bit itchy when I read certain parts of the suttas, like the Buddha being able to fly - but it is what it says.

    Anyway, to get back on the topic. In Ajahn Brahmavamso's book Mindfulness Bliss and Beyond he describes a method to recall previous lives so people can try to check for themselves. This way we can get beyond all texts anyway. It's not the scientific proof the thread was intended for, but still proof enough, not? :)

    Metta,
    Sabre
    person
  • zenffzenff Veteran
    edited April 2013
    It is proof enough for our capacity of creating false memories.
    riverflowvinlyn
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited April 2013
    Yet the only thing we can go by is our own experience. Just give it a shot, or at least read it because he adresses this common reply.
  • BonsaiDougBonsaiDoug Simply, on the path. Veteran
    @Sabre - Mindfulness Bliss and Beyond - just ordered the Kindle flavor - thanx for that!
    Sabre
Sign In or Register to comment.