This was an interesting read
Cynical Buddhism seems a good term than calling it secular and throwing out the crucial, important partsđ
3 Likes
Perhaps I should have said corelate. Are there accounts in the sutta of children having the ability to remember past lives?
Yes. And they are not evidence of rebirth.
I am baffled as to you, a believer of rebirth would not accept such cases as evidences. Why not?
I donât believe Stevenson saw his research as proof of rebirth either. What baffles me is why you are so determined to present his research as proof. Isnât the Buddhaâs teaching enough? 
I already explained as to why these would benefit some people. I myself initially feel that these are not needed as I have enough faith.
However as I interact more with secular Buddhists, I really see and appreciate the existence of such cases for us to be able to present independent evidences, outside of the sutta. Not everyone has faith and these are valuable to generate faith.
Also, do notice the word choice. Evidences is not equal to proof.
Technically speaking, we can only prove mathematical theorems.
Everything else is just evidences for the best model, in science.
I say these are rebirth evidences. I do not claim even scientific.
I would say itâs more than enough to qualify for court cases verdicts. Which doesnât require lab based research, and investigate cases as they come to piece together what is most likely to had happened.
Evidences is not proof. It points towards rebirth. This claim is soft enough to be undeniable except by those who do not believe in rebirth and blindly deny data.
An example, say Alice lost a baggage in the airport and she described the outer and inner content of the baggage, for the lost baggage staff to track down her baggage which has the label torn.
Given the baggage is found and the details are as Alice explained. Any reasonable person would conclude that the baggage belongs to Alice. The sheer coincidence for more than 1 baggage to have the same external and internal details exact to the description is too low to be taken seriously.
To deny that is to deny common sense. The rebirth cases are of such strength. People who wishes to deny try to up the criterion to unreasonable levels, ignoring their common sense.
2 Likes
This is how I feel, too. I see rebirth as a key teaching in the suttas, but I donât see Dhamma as Science, but as a different knowledge system, so Iâve no interest in using Science to âproveâ it. Worring about how we can use Science to âproveâ Dhamma seems to me to be buying into materialism.
To put it more bluntly, I tend to think that people on both extremes of the rebirth argument are taking a materialistic approach to it, and I donât see it as a good way of progressing the conversation.
I found this conversation where Bhante @Sujato advocates for Dhamma, not materialism, very helpful, especially the comment from about 39:21 about how he became convinced of rebirth in the carpark of a leper colonyâŚ
2 Likes
Agree and well put. The teachings about rebirth in the Nikayas are ubiquitous and Dhamma practice is undermined without rebirth and its cessation.
Of course, people are free to believe what they wish on a personal level. But then the whole of the Dhamma teaching becomes a one-chance, one-life Enlightenment opportunity.
From the article you cited on Stevenson: "Interestingly, and contrary to most religious notions of reincarnation, there was zero evidence of karma. On the whole, it appeared to be a fairly mechanical soul-rebirthing process, not a moralistic one."
Not sure how he or anyone could come to this conclusion. From the Buddhaâs teachings, to be reborn in the human realm is already a sign of good kamma, overall. But, I havenât read Stevensonâs book âŚ
Just a reminder that science doesnât âproveâ anything; it generates explanations for phenomena.
All explanations (theories) are limited, i.e. they cannot account for everything. Over time, observations that the current popular theory cannot explain accumulate, until eventually the current popular theory is modified or discarded for some other theory which does a better job of explaining stuff.
Physicalism cannot really explain or account for NDEs or why children remember past lives. If enough evidence of these phenomena accumulate, perhaps physicalism will be modified or discarded for some other theory that can account for these phenomena.
5 Likes
I think you confuse between materialism vs empiricism. As explained here. Lecture: Does Secular Buddhism exist? Ajahn Brahmali - #60 by NgXinZhao Itâs always good to have some external verification.
Or else itâs akin to Bible fundamentalist who ignores fossil evidences and insist on young earth, no evolution etc.
1 Like
The Buddha didnât talk about birthmarks, or about children remembering past lives, etc., - but that doesnât negate the possibility that those things can happen - also, these issues are such minor details, and that could be the reason why Buddha did not think it was necessary to elaborate on such issues. Also, as @Mumfie has noted here, personality traits, etc., do get carried on according to the teachings of the Buddha and this is an observation that rebirth researchers have made - there have also been several reports of unusual play habits and irrational fears, etc., that children display that are explainable through previous life experiences.
The process of rebirth is very useful to interpret the teachings - it is not counterproductive at all. For example, the suffering (i.e., âunsatisfactory natureâ) of human life relate to the samsaric existence, not just for this life - otherwise one may argue that suffering ends at death and therefore there is no use in striving for enlightenment. Currently, science is stuck in materialism and is so very confused about what the âmindâ is â all they find are correlations and more correlations, and these understandings do not prove to be useful at all.
@Peter_Durham Why do you say, âIan Stevensonâs research is not evidence of rebirthâ? If you have read his books (and books by other researchers such as Jim Tucker) they carefully analyze the evidence (by carefully ruling out any alternative explanations) - they say that there cannot be any other explanation for these cases. If you read the books, you will also see how amazing these cases are - there was one case where a child found things he had hidden in his previous life (in his previous house), about which no one else in his previous family knew. Some children notice landmarks that have changed, asking questions like âwhere is the tree that used to be here?â
I also think the future generation is better led by data evidence (cases of rebirth) rather than a blind belief that the Buddha taught rebirth. I also donât see any difference between the two - i.e., I donât think there are any contradictions in terms of âthe ability of small children to remember their previous lifeâ and âteaching on the ability to remember past livesâ (your words).
Possibly this is just about semantics but science does prove. For example if I leave a glass of water out overnight and when I come out in the morning it has turned to ice it proves that the night temperature dropped below freezing point or smoking does cause cancer, it has been proven.
Outside of math and logic, scientists donât use the word âproveâ because it implies a way too high degree of certainty about scientific findings.
This is not really science but just an inference you made. Science would include ruling out alternate plausible explanations for this observation, replicating it, figuring out to what extent the result generalize across types of containers, liquids, time left out, etc.
Itâs just more accurate to say that the evidence that smoking causes cancer is really strong, and that any rational person would avoid smoking based on the evidence.
The methods of science just donât give us definitive proof of things though, thatâs going too far.
2 Likes
Not really. All of science comes down to statistical inferences, even if done subconsciously.
Regarding your water example, how do you know someone didnât put the glass in the freezer for a while? How do you know, if it was left outside, that someone didnât do the same thing or switch the glasses? These are unlikely, but clearly falsifiable and testable possibilities. So we go with the statistically most likely explanation, without truly disproving the other possibilities nor âprovingâ our chosen inference.
Having practiced medicine, I can tell you the data regarding smoking and cancer is correlative, not causative. Basically, correlation in science does not prove causation.
This in no way means smoking is benign; the data and many studies reveal that statistically smoking correlates with a higher risk of cancer and ill health, so by all means avoid it.
Best to avoid concepts like âprovenâ and âdefinitelyâ in science.
Just sayingâŚ
@Jasudho They were just meant as quick examples that came to my mind. I think your average person would not take umbrage and would see them for what they were (but possibly not).
@Erika_ODonnell had already pointed out that âOutside of math and logic, scientists donât use the word âproveâ because it implies a way too high degree of certainty about scientific findings.â.
1 Like
This is a nice article! I liked the statement: âThe wish not to believe,â Stevenson once said, âcan influence as strongly as the wish to believe.â Currently, the blind belief in materialism (for which there is no evidence whatsoever) is highly praised in society, and young children are âbrainwashedâ to regard this as an âabsolute truth.â
Also, considering that we are able to send detailed messages/pictures from one cordless device to another, thousands of miles apart within seconds, I do not see why life cannot continue after death. In other words, we cannot assume that all explanations of life have to be limited to explanations based on cells and tissues. Additionally, when it comes to consciousness, we need to think outside the box and realize that the reason people donât think beyond cells/tissues is only due to their reluctance to accept evidence that run contrary to established predispositions (i.e., the psychological concept of âcognitive dissonanceâ). Finally, evidence (from rebirth cases, etc.) points to the truth of rebirth - just like how the discovery of the microscope pointed us to the âtruthâ that microbes actually exist.
Thank you both for your replies! 
I donât think the moderators here would allow me to actually post what kind of wrong views the various Theosophical Groups with their respective leaders, be it Blavatsky, Leadbeater or Bailey, actually have.
If any monk/nun actually knew and looked up their views on various topics, they would most certainly not want to associate with any theosophist.
The Buddha mentions not to have bad friends, not to associate with fools.
The âgroup karmaâ-fantasy mentioned is nothing compared to the other really disturbing things found ONLY in the theosophical teachingsâŚ
Question: Does Ajahn Brahmali exist? Secular Buddhism 
3 Likes
Donât worry: Iâm sure he already knows he doesnât exist! 
3 Likes