So you are saying seeing the five aggregates as not me and not mine is unskillful? I think you are the one with wrong view.
1 Like
Hi Stephen, sorry, i did not mean this personnally.
You see it this way that the organims lives in a hostile environment and his aim is to survive and pass its genes onto future generations?
Seeing it this way, why would it be skillful for this organism to see body and mind as not me and mine?
1 Like
I am saying that the persistence of self is explained very well by evolution. Organisms that model, not only their environments, but themselves have an advantage. Evolution naturally would make it difficult to shed this notion of self.
I am saying that it could be disadvantageous from an evolutionary perspective, not ours, for an organism to become indifferent. I am not making a value judgement, I am explaining why “self” is so persistent.
From an evolutionary perspective, not ours, a monk that does not reproduce is a dead end, though we respect them for their commitment to following the path.
Somewhere the Buddha says his dharma goes against the stream. Evolution does a nice job of explaining why.
1 Like
Thanks for asking. Nice question. Suppose that the reality of cause and effect we see, we experience, we analyse, we live in, we depend upon, also includes laws of kamma and rebirth. Suppose this is a fact of life, which the Canon says literally (MN60) Can a denier of kamma and rebirth be not deluded as he denies this part of reality?
Does the Buddha not say (in MN28, SN12.27/28/33/49)
"One who sees dependent origination sees the teaching (Dhamma). One who sees the teaching sees dependent origination.” (MN28)
"A noble disciple understands conditions, their origin, their cessation, and the practice that leads to their cessation. Such a noble disciple is called ‘one accomplished in view’, ‘one accomplished in vision’, ‘one who has come to the true teaching’, ‘one who sees this true teaching’, ‘one endowed with a trainee’s knowledge’, ‘one who has entered the stream of the teaching’, ‘a noble one with penetrative wisdom’, and ‘one who stands pushing open the door of the deathless’.” (SN12.27)
Knowing and understanding the Dhamma, seeing the Dhamma, i belief, also means seeing the basic principles of kamma and rebirth expressed in Paticca Samuppada.
I agree with you that Nibbana refers to the “permanent non arising of greed,hate and delusion” but i think it also refers to how this has happened, namely, because of the development of 7 enlightment factors, 5 powers, the Noble Eightfold Path etc. So on the one hand Nibbana is lacking defilements but it is full of quality too. That part is, i belief not unimportant.
I do not think that, for example, a religious person’s peace with the decay of his/her body or with his/her illness, his/her equanimity towards what happens in the world, is really the same peace a Buddha realises. I think one cannot say that peace of mind is peace of mind. It is also important how one has realised that peace of mind.
For myself, while i have studied and practised Buddha-Dhamma for some time, i have become more and more convinced that things like other beings, rebirth, kamma, a samsara in which we travelled a lot, etc. all these basic buildingblocks, matter. But this is pure personal. For me it all matters.
2 Likes
Thanks Stephen, now i understand what you meant.
2 Likes
he was very afraid to experience the consequences of his dark kamma after death.
Why was he afraid? Because he was still craving existences or averse to certain existences. Grieving over the past, worrying about moral purity, he still also claimed those past intention-driven actions as his, which is me-making and grasping. Attachment over the future, “what will I become when I pass away from here”, is among the most difficult of fetters to abandon.
“With craving departed even before the dissolution of the body, not dependent on the past, not to be reckoned in the present, for him their is nothing to be preferred in the future” - Snp 4.10
That sounds like a nice theory Dnoabedian. I am not going to assume this is possible.
One would be surprised.
1 Like
Why
Because they crave non-existence and identify the cessation of the aggregates with non-existence.
I feel it cannot be denied that from birth to death you are the same individual
I have come to the opposite conclusion. Moment to moment, there are significant differences. “I” am hardly the same person as I was 2 years ago. Desires have changed. Beliefs have changed. The body has changed, even if it looks the same as the outside. Feelings have changed. The danger in the concept of individuality rests in the generation of self, but with different words. I need not arrive at the view I am the same person, but neither should I arrive at the view I am different? Why? Because both views are me-making, they do not lead to an end to me-making.
But, Suppose an apple in your fruitcompote decays. Is that decaying apple another apple than the fresh one it once was? If this is really true one cannot identify decay! Impossible. Decay is then non-existent. One must have a notion of sameness to establish change. One cannot establish change too, this way.
Looking upon dhammas and outward forms, one perceive what stands before you as an apple, a construct. Later one comes across an apple one identifies as the one seen before (an act of sanna), except it has decayed.
Is that the same apple? Is it different? Neither. Both. Such inquiries are to be abandoned by the skillful ones. They’re an invitation for the construction of a self, albeit, for the apple.
“The characteristic of perception is the perceiving of the qualities of the object. Its function is to make a sign as a condition for perceiving again that “this is the same,” or its function is recognizing what has been previously perceived. It becomes manifest as the interpreting of the object…by way of the features that had been apprehended. Its proximate cause is the object as it appears. Its procedure is compared to a carpenter’s recognition of certain kinds of wood by the mark he has made on each.”
- Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pg. 80
We are told that the awakened sage abandons Sanna.
“Having understood and renounced perception, a sage should cross over the flood” - Snp 4.2
“There are no ties for one who is devoid of perceptions” - Snp 4.9
“Perception is not yours—abandon it!” - MN 22
"“By the utter destruction of delight in existence,
By the extinction of perception and consciousness,
By the cessation and appeasement of feelings:
It is thus, friend, that I know for beings—
Emancipation, release, seclusion.” - SN 1.2
One note on the translation of viññāṇa/ vijñānam, as consciousness in SN 1.2. This is the common buddhist translation as viññāṇa came to mean sense consciousness and its connotation is normally consciousness. However, the sagatha vagga (the first vagga) of the Samyutta Nikaya is said to belong to the earliest stratum, which means that words may have different connotations than the rest of the canon. This isn’t something that is readily talked about, but is a conversation worth having, as I (along with some others) suspect viññāṇa here to be more intelligible to upanishadic thinkers and thus have a connotation that is in line with the vedas and upanishads.
vijñānam in the Vedas and Upanishads doesn’t mean sense consciousness and can mean any number of things from recognition, distinguishing, understanding, knowledge, discrimination
1 Like
Does that mean that you belief that without me and mine making a Buddha is not able to remember his former lifes and what he said and did yesterday? That is, i belief, illness.
I belief, like venerable @Khemarato.bhikkhu said, anatta, not-self does not denie individuality.
Thoughts, intentions, feelings, perceptions. speech, actions are moments in a unique individual mindstream. When the Buddha talks about his former lives and what happened, this is not as an entity Me but just as this lifestream.
2 Likes
I think it’s important to distinguish between remembering a past life and remembering “my”/his past lives.
We encounter a contradiction in the suttas. In the earliest discourses, we see the sage is one who simply does not engage in any "me"s or “mines”. Nothing, absolutely nothing in the world of phenomena, including thoughts, knowledge, memories, consciousnesses, feelings, absolutely nothing is claimed as “mine” or as belonging to the self. There is simply no possession, but complete detachment in every regard.
So when we read certain suttas that represent the Buddha saying “me” or “mine” with regard to past lives, we already are faced with a contradiction. It’s clear that the composers of these (what I take to be later) suttas that present the buddha as engaging in me-making did not understand that a sage already claims nothing, past, present or future to be his.
It is very possible that the historical Buddha remembered or accessed memories of previous lives, but unless he wants to contradict his own dharma (which I doubt he does), he would not say these were “my” or “his” previous lives… merely previous lives and people that came before.
Unfortunately, those who were listening to him would assume he is talking about “his” previous lives, since many of those listening to him were not awakened but still engaged in me-making, possessing a concept of self and selves.
The closest thought experiment I can give is if some deva or demon put the memories of Abraham Lincoln in a mind, let’s say the mind of Green. Green wakes up with these memories after a long period of meditation. An unenlightened mind would engage in grasping at these memories as “me” or “mine”, “my past life etc.”. But Green, in an awakened state, one would not say these are his memories. These are merely the memories of the being conventionally called Abraham Lincoln, a past life that arose and ceased. There is no attachment or me-making taking place.
But to a society that believes in reincarnation and the self, people would look about you and think “You” are the reincarnation of Abe Lincoln or that Abe Lincoln was “your” past self.
1 Like
Exactly. Buddha uses language in 2 ways. An2.24,25
Mendicants, these two misrepresent the Realized One. What two? One who explains a discourse in need of interpretation as a discourse whose meaning is explicit. And one who explains a discourse whose meaning is explicit as a discourse in need of interpretation. These two misrepresent the Realized One.”
25
“These two don’t misrepresent the Realized One. What two? One who explains a discourse in need of interpretation as a discourse in need of interpretation. And one who explains a discourse whose meaning is explicit as a discourse whose meaning is explicit. These two don’t misrepresent the Realized One.”
If you read enough suttas, you notice that although a lot of the time Buddha refers to himself as tathagata, thus come one, he didn’t do it everytime.
So whenever he uses the language of self, it is to be known that it’s a discourse in need of interpretation, or in common usage conventional truth, or as in your quotation above.
Whenever he uses the language of no self it’s in a discourse whose meaning is explicit and is ultimate truth.
If you cannot acknowledge that there’s conventional truth language used by the Buddha, you will only make great confusion for yourself in reading the suttas.
And in terms of the reference to the past of of self, here the self is shorthand for the individual chain of past lives I described above. Which ultimately is to be seen as not self either. But such seeing doesn’t negate the reality that such chain exists.
Thus it is possible for enlightened ones to acknowledge that unenlightened people gets reborn. What’s more for unenlightened people should also acknowledge it. Which you so far are unable to acknowledge still.
Best is to examine what sort of feeling makes you cling onto the view of either agnosticism or no literal rebirth so strongly that you cannot open your mind to the plain truth of rebirth despite sutta and independent empirical evidence. For view clinging originates from feelings.
@green. Please don’t mistake me with Bhante khemarato
2 Likes
Bhante,
When speaking of chains, isn’t there some risk of speaking of chains of individuals. Perhaps even the idea or notion of individual, distinct streams is moha and punnabhava, and in practice, nothing but a sankhara.
For instance, let one posit that two bhikkhus recall the same past life. Does this mean that such a past life was part of both of their chains, or that their chain split?
It is for this reason, I retain an agnosticism where “chains exist” is one view. “Chains don’t exist” is another view. One clings to neither view and seeks the ending of craving to reach a state of peace.
After all, if one experiences the memory of a past life, how can one be certain that past life is part of this chain or that chain? The experience may lead to one to claiming that past of life is part of this chain, when it reality it may be part of that chain or no chain altogether.
The less one worries about the ontology of chains or worrying about what came before, the more one is freed up to find peace now.
Agnosticism isn’t a view so much as it is an absence of view.
The view literal rebirth exists is not adopted, but the view literal rebirth does not exist is also not adopted. There is no rejection or accepting that is taking place. It is seen as unimportant, redundant, a distraction to what needs to be accomplished in this life.
Indeed, the view that literal rebirth exists, clinging to that view also originates from feelings, no? One “feels” or is an under an impression that the sensations or memories one experiences is best explained by the concept of literal rebirth, rather than by some other explanation or concept.
I do not doubt there is a mindstate that can be best described as the experience where one feels or thinks or sees they are part of a chain. What seems less important is if that experience is real or not or if that mind state reveals truth or an illusion or both or neither, but rather how one reacts to that experience. That is how I interpret the passage that speak about being “skilled in all mindstates”.
Is there clinging or craving when that mindstate is experienced? Is there dukkha or not?
1 Like
regarding karma and rebirth denier I could agree they are wrong, now what about rebirth agnostic and karma agnostic what about them ?
one is deluded if one takes a view and it’s wrong but agnostic people don’t take any view
as for delusion I think this is something that supports craving so delusion here is not knowing the drawback of conditioned phenomena and that drawback is that they are impermanent
people are deluded when they see conditioned phenomena as permanent
now if people don’t have wrong view they have right view, since agnostic people don’t deny rebirth and karma effect they have no wrong view
the end of all unsatisfactoriness aka suffering is cessation of craving I think even rebirth and karma denier could have no craving except grasping(craving) at view but agnostics people have no grasping even at view
There are these four kinds of grasping. What four? Grasping at sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, and theories of a self.
now grasping is craving too, you crave something you don’t have while you grasp something you have, craving is the source of grasping so if you grasp something you crave them you seek them and when you obtain them you relish them thus grasping to them
I do hope you finish reading at least the 4 Nikayas before you decide on a view, agnotism is also a choice, a view. It’s one which is criticized by the Dhamma.
Furthermore, take another teacher who is dull and stupid. Because of that, whenever he’s asked a question, he resorts to evasiveness and equivocation: ‘I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.’
A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘This teacher is dull and stupid. Because of that, whenever he’s asked a question, he resorts to evasiveness and equivocation: “I don’t say it’s like this. I don’t say it’s like that. I don’t say it’s otherwise. I don’t say it’s not so. And I don’t deny it’s not so.” This spiritual life is unreliable.’ Realizing this, they leave disappointed.
This is the fourth kind of unreliable spiritual life.
These are the four kinds of unreliable spiritual life that have been explained by the Blessed One, who knows and sees, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. A sensible person would, to the best of their ability, not practice such spiritual paths, and if they did practice them, they wouldn’t complete the procedure of the skillful teaching.”
MN 76: Sandakasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)
Do read the sutta above in full, it lists down the method of personally verifying rebirth and kamma, transforming views about it from mere faith to knowledge. And how is faith acquired about kamma and rebirth? It’s by acknowledging that the Buddha taught literal kamma and rebirth, and that since his teachings on psychological part of Buddhism is so accurate and correct, he might be right about kamma and rebirth, so the benefit of the doubt is given to the Buddha for taking kamma and rebirth on board one’s worldview based on faith. This faith then is not blind faith, but faith based on confidence due to results of the practise. And add to that rebirth evidences, we can totally adopt rebirth and kamma without blind faith. But faith is still important. It’s one of the 5 faculties, 5 powers.
The importance of faith in the Buddha is highlighted in this sutta: DN 28: Sampasādanīyasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)
“Sir, I have such confidence in the Buddha that I believe there’s no other ascetic or brahmin—whether past, future, or present—whose direct knowledge is superior to the Buddha when it comes to awakening.”
“That’s a grand and dramatic statement, Sāriputta. You’ve roared a definitive, categorical lion’s roar, saying: ‘I have such confidence in the Buddha that I believe there’s no other ascetic or brahmin—whether past, future, or present—whose direct knowledge is superior to the Buddha when it comes to awakening.’
What about all the perfected ones, the fully awakened Buddhas who lived in the past? Have you comprehended their minds to know that those Buddhas had such ethics, or such qualities, or such wisdom, or such meditation, or such freedom?”
“No, sir.”
“And what about all the perfected ones, the fully awakened Buddhas who will live in the future? Have you comprehended their minds to know that those Buddhas will have such ethics, or such qualities, or such wisdom, or such meditation, or such freedom?”
“No, sir.”
“And what about me, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha at present? Have you comprehended my mind to know that I have such ethics, or such qualities, or such wisdom, or such meditation, or such freedom?”
“No, sir.”
“Well then, Sāriputta, given that you don’t comprehend the minds of Buddhas past, future, or present, what exactly are you doing, making such a grand and dramatic statement, roaring such a definitive, categorical lion’s roar?”
“Sir, though I don’t comprehend the minds of Buddhas past, future, and present, still I understand this by inference from the teaching. Suppose there were a king’s frontier citadel with fortified embankments, ramparts, and arches, and a single gate. And it has a gatekeeper who is astute, competent, and clever. He keeps strangers out and lets known people in. As he walks around the patrol path, he doesn’t see a hole or cleft in the wall, not even one big enough for a cat to slip out. They’d think, ‘Whatever sizable creatures enter or leave the citadel, all of them do so via this gate.’
.
.
.
Then the Buddha said to Venerable Sāriputta, “So Sāriputta, you should frequently speak this exposition of the teaching to the monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen. Though there will be some foolish people who have doubt or uncertainty regarding the Realized One, when they hear this exposition of the teaching they’ll give up that doubt or uncertainty.”
That’s how Venerable Sāriputta declared his confidence in the Buddha’s presence. And that’s why the name of this discussion is “Inspiring Confidence”.
AN 5.34: Sīhasenāpatisutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)
When he said this, General Sīha said to the Buddha, “When it comes to those four fruits of giving that are apparent in the present life, I don’t have to rely on faith in the Buddha, for I know them too. I’m a giver, a donor, and am dear and beloved to many people. I’m a giver, and good people associate with me. I’m a giver, and I have this good reputation: ‘General Sīha gives, serves, and attends on the Saṅgha.’ I’m a giver, and I enter any kind of assembly bold and assured, whether it’s an assembly of aristocrats, brahmins, householders, or ascetics. When it comes to these four fruits of giving that are apparent in the present life, I don’t have to rely on faith in the Buddha, for I know them too. But when the Buddha says: ‘When a giver’s body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ I don’t know this, so I have to rely on faith in the Buddha.”
“That’s so true, Sīha! That’s so true! When a giver’s body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.
The view literal rebirth exists is not adopted, but the view literal rebirth does not exist is also not adopted. There is no rejection or accepting that is taking place. It is seen as unimportant, redundant, a distraction to what needs to be accomplished in this life.
The Buddha very clearly stated that rebirth is true.
AN 3.119: Kammantasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)
“Mendicants, there are three failures. What three? Failure in action, livelihood, and view.
And what is failure in action? It’s when someone kills living creatures, steals, commits sexual misconduct, and uses speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. This is called ‘failure in action’.
And what is failure in livelihood? It’s when a noble disciple has wrong livelihood and earns a living by wrong livelihood. This is called ‘failure in livelihood’.
And what is failure in view? It’s when someone has wrong view, a distorted perspective, such as: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no obligation to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’ This is called ‘failure in view’. These are the three failures.
There are three accomplishments. What three? Accomplishment in action, livelihood, and view.
And what is accomplishment in action? It’s when someone doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, or use speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. This is called ‘accomplishment in action’.
And what is accomplishment in livelihood? It’s when a noble disciple has right livelihood and earns a living by right livelihood. This is called ‘accomplishment in livelihood’.
And what is accomplishment in view? It’s when someone has right view, an undistorted perspective, such as: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There is obligation to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’ This is called ‘accomplishment in view’.
These are the three accomplishments.”
You’re free to adopt the failure in view (wrong view), of either rejecting rebirth or adopting agnosticism, but I speak for the sake of those who are not so knowledgable in the dhamma, do note that those are unskillful views, it doesn’t lead to liberation. Follow the Buddha, not some deluded secular Buddhist.
Had you missed out my reply above? Secular Buddhists represents scientism - #126 by NgXinZhao Short answer, not possible, it’s one to one.
It’s quite simple really, recall your memory of you when you’re 10 years old. Is there any possibility of confusing it with a memory of another person who’s 10 years old?
Going back to past life is the same. One knows this chain of past life is oneself, by memory of not seeing one’s own head unless one is in front of a mirror. First person perspective. Read more past life cases seriously. You’re just speculating for the sake of agnostism.
What’s required is to just acknowledge literal rebirth is true. No one said you have to cling to view of rebirth. Or that you must cling to past life as mine, my precious (Gollum voice). We can acknowledge that we have childhood memories without clinging to them as precious childhood memories, must preserve every detail on diary, etc. Mine mine! Hahaha. Nope. Do know the difference between faith, view, knowledge vs clinging. It’s due to clinging to the view of agnostism is the best that you might be not open to see faith, view, or even knowledge of rebirth when it’s presented to you in many ways from many people, from many angles.
In many suttas, the Buddha advocated for his monastics to recollect past lives. If it is conducive to clinging, if it doesn’t lead to liberation would he had asked so of his monastics? It’s exactly due to knowing directly that rebirth is true, that one understands the full dangers of samsara not just intellectually, that the desire (chanda) for liberation becomes super strong and one makes the breakthrough to awakening.
Chart of the Factors of the Gradual Training (leighb.com) See RPL, remembering past lives. It’s in 19 out of 32 suttas which describes graduated training.
MN 77: Mahāsakuludāyisutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)
Furthermore, I have explained to my disciples a practice that they use to recollect the many kinds of past lives. That is: one, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand rebirths; many eons of the world contracting, many eons of the world expanding, many eons of the world contracting and expanding. ‘There, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else. There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn here.’ And so they recollect their many kinds of past lives, with features and details. Suppose a person was to leave their home village and go to another village. From that village they’d go to yet another village. And from that village they’d return to their home village. They’d think: ‘I went from my home village to another village. There I stood like this, sat like that, spoke like this, or kept silent like that. From that village I went to yet another village. There too I stood like this, sat like that, spoke like this, or kept silent like that. And from that village I returned to my home village.’ In the same way, I have explained to my disciples a practice that they use to recollect the many kinds of past lives.
And many of my disciples meditate on that having attained perfection and consummation of insight.
3 Likes
I do hope you finish reading at least the 4 Nikayas before you decide on a view, agnotism is also a choice, a view. It’s one which is criticized by the Dhamma.
Sanjaya Belatthiputta’s philosophy still engaged in me-making. It was all about the “I”, “I”, “I”, and “You”, “you”, “you”. It wasn’t a helpful philosophy, because it was not concerned about the cessation of dukkha, craving, or the quenching of the self. It understood that views and speculation are to be abandoned by the sage, but it didn’t understand why or for what purpose. Moreover, it was not particularly concerned with mindfulness, observing the arising and cessation of dhammas.
A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way: ‘This teacher is dull and stupid. Because of that, whenever he’s asked a question, he resorts to evasiveness and equivocation:
It’s funny. People thought the same of Gotama when he refused to answer questions or was silent. People perceived Gotama’s silence as evasiveness. But the sage cares not about the opinions of others, as the sage craves not praise nor trembles at infamy.
It’s quite simple really, recall your memory of you when you’re 10 years old. Is there any possibility of confusing it with a memory of another person who’s 10 years old?
That seems to be like an invitation to engage in me-making, no? Knowing the possibility that the mind can generate false memories, I need not arrive at the conclusion that a memory of 10 years old is accurate or not. Perhaps it’s a memory of another person, say from a dream experienced at that age. After all, there are memories of 10-year-old Donabedian in school, but 10 year old Donabedian also dreamed about school and has memories from these dreams he may believe are real. There does not seem a need to want to come to such states of view. If these memories arise, irrespective of wants, I shall let them arise and fall, without grasping or forming views in respect of what is seen, heard or thought.
Going back to past life is the same. One knows this chain of past life is oneself, by memory of not seeing one’s own head unless one is in front of a mirror. First person perspective.
“One knows this chain of past life is oneself”, that seems like me-making and the generation of self.
Speculation aims to reach a truth, but our intuitions are often erroneous. I’ve met people who claim to have met elves with drugs, gone to heaven, or God(s) or to have seen beings of light. Much like rebirth, I have to question their experiences. Although, at the end of the day I’m not concerned if what they saw was real or not. What is more concerning is the effects of their experiences on craving and clinging.
Read more past life cases seriously.
Yes, I don’t like how the “rebirth” in question takes place in the same country and that in most cases the families were acquainted. That arouses suspicion. If indeed these children were experiencing past life regression, I would expect the families not to be acquainted or the child to have a past life regression from a being that lived in another country or time period. To read them seriously, means to question them no rather than assume they are telling the truth? And to identify flaws, even if one is firm in the belief that rebirth exists.
For example, many in the Christian tradition believe that people can receive visions from Jesus, Mary etc. But even if they think it is possible, not everyone who claims to be receiving these visions is telling the truth. Many are making it up. One can certainly compile a book of all those people who claim to receive visions from God or Gods. Some of these people have been able to predict the future or avoid disaster with these visions, like a voice telling them not to go on a plane which ended later up crashing. But is that dumb luck, a coincidence, or is there actually something going on?
Personally, as is with those claiming rebirth, I need not arrive at either view. It seems irrelevent for my quest to cease dukkha.
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta’s Grove, Anathapindika’s monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’? ""Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form/feeling/perception/fabrications/consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being.’
The Satta Sutta (SN 23.2) is one sutta that led me to a psychological interpretation of punnabhava. Here “being” isn’t described as something literal, as in a material form or a birth in a realm. It’s defined in terms of craving, delight, passion, and desire for the 5 aggregates.
Wherever there is any desire, passion, delight, or craving, there is being. And when the desire, passion, delight, or craving and clinging (as self) end, when one is not caught up in these processes, one reasons there is the cessation of being.
So the truth or untruth of literal rebirth is not important to me, as in this very life, here, I experience desire, passion, delight, and craving for the aggregates. When these desires fade, being ends, but whenever they re-emerge punnabhava, again-being, takes place again.
But there is another example which seems to provide a psychological understanding of birth. It’s from MN 82, the Angulimina Sutta. In this Sutta, the former killer who has since converted and become a disciple of Gotama’s sees a woman who is delivering an upside down baby and in pain.
“In that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, ‘Sister, since I was born I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.’”
“But, lord, wouldn’t that be a lie for me? For I have intentionally killed many living beings.”
"Then in that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, ‘Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.’
In this example the Buddha is seen defining birth psychologically, since he tells Angulimala to say to the woman “Since I was born, I do not recall intentionally killing a being”. But this confuses Angulimala, who we may infer, has a literal view of rebirth. Because Angulimala was not literally reborn, he points that out to the Buddha that since his birth he has killed living beings, and demonstrates confusion with the Buddha’s connotation of birth.
The Buddha, understanding Angulimala’s confusion, adds the adjective ariya in front, to teach Angulimala that since he accepted the dhamma and converted, he has indeed been “reborn” psychologically and metaphorically.
I treat the suttas as heterogenous collection, reflecting the beliefs of their composers and reciters. So it doesn’t surprise me when Gotama is presented as preferring or teaching this teaching or exposing this view/interpretation over those of others.
There are even suttas where Gotama recommends harmful Jain practices, but we know from comparative study to hypothesize that these suttas (which made their way into the canon) are probably not the authentic teachings of Gotama! But if those teachings and suttas got in, the question is, what else got in?
What’s required is to just acknowledge literal rebirth is true. No one said you have to cling to view of rebirth. Or that you must cling to past life as mine, my precious (Gollum voice). We can acknowledge that we have childhood memories without clinging to them as precious childhood memories, must preserve every detail on diary, etc. Mine mine! Hahaha. Nope. Do know the difference between faith, view, knowledge vs clinging. It’s due to clinging to the view of agnostism is the best that you might be not open to see faith, view, or even knowledge of rebirth when it’s presented to you in many ways from many people, from many angles.
What one calls knowledge or truth, the other calls opinion or speculation. What one calls understanding, the other indoctrination. Being led into views, they engage in debate and dispute. I guess “I” am guilty of that here.
“Each maintaining their own view, the experts disagree, arguing: ‘Whoever sees it this way has understood the teaching; those who reject this are inadequate.’ So arguing, they quarrel, saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’ Which one of these speaks true, for they all claim to be an expert?” So arguing, they quarrel, saying, ‘The other is a fool, an amateur!’ Which one of these speaks true, for they all claim to be an expert? f not accepting another’s teaching makes you a useless fool lacking wisdom, then they’re all fools lacking wisdom, for they all maintain their own view…. … Standing in judgment, measuring by their own standard, they keep getting into disputes with the world. But a person who has given up all judgments creates no conflict in the world.” Snp 4.13
This is a passage that I refer to when dealing with views. I try not to form judgements.
There are suttas which acknowledge the possibility of no literal rebirth. One such is the Kalama sutta. AN 3.65
"‘If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.’ This is the first assurance he acquires.
"‘But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.’ This is the second assurance he acquires.
"‘If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?’ This is the third assurance he acquires.
“‘But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.’ This is the fourth assurance he acquires.
One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now.”
The point here is that irrespective of whether there is rebirth or not, the practice of the dhamma brings assurances. If acknowledging rebirth was required, Gotama would have said it to the Kalamas.
In many suttas, the Buddha advocated for his monastics to recollect past lives. If it is conducive to clinging, if it doesn’t lead to liberation would he had asked so of his monastics? It’s exactly due to knowing directly that rebirth is true, that one understands the full dangers of samsara not just intellectually, that the desire (chanda) for liberation becomes super strong and one makes the breakthrough to awakening.
We have a great variety of Suttas that present what right Samadhi looks like, and not all of them are similar or in agreement with one another. There is a great variety and contradiction about what right samadhi consists of. I acknowledge there to be suttas where recollection of past lives is encouraged and demonstrated to be a fruit of the dhamma and samadhi, but there are suttas that mention samadhi that leads to nibbana without any reference to past life recollection.
An 10.60 is one example of the latter.
Perhaps, past lives was meant to mean something psychologically, as with whenever the “I” re-arose, but overtime became literalized and that literalist interpretation became preserved in sutta. That is my current view, in light of suttas that define being differently than those which define it literally. But I could be wrong.
Either way, my practice is not geared towards arriving to states of truth other than the truth that is dukkha’s cessation.
If I were to experience past life memories or feelings in the future, I’d not arrive at the view they were part of my stream. Or part of a stream even. I’d just recognize them as they manifest
I’d just discern form as form, consciousness as consciousness, feeling as feeling, all non-self etc.
1 Like
Hi @Alaray,
I see what you say in your reply.
Then, for me, it comes down to the question: is it really true that people are in a sincere way agnostic? What does that agnoticism mean? How can you see they are agnostics? Because they say so?
I am not convinced at all. I feel like people which say they are agnotic towards certain issues, like kamma, rebirth, mind-made beings etc. are in realilty mostly very biased minds leaning heavily on this or that position or interpretation or view. View-less they are certainly not.
I do not belief in that agnosticism. It is not a sincere open mentallity. It is heavily biased.
2 Likes
You can bring this to the extreme that one also cannot claim to be awakened, detached, enlightend.
For that would also imply me and mine-making. Any claim would be absurd. The mystics hold this view. One can only become empty and in this emptiness be a perfect vessel for God, a perfect instrument or vehicle for the Holy Ghost. That is also why, for example Meister Eckart, a well-known christian mystic, taught there is no greater quality then detachment. One must not claim wisdom, God, Goodness, Truth, Enlightment, etc. I have some feeling for this.
Any claim, also of detachment, would show me and mine-making.
It is said that khandha means aggregate, a heap, a collection.
The rupa khandha consist of every body you ever had. The vedana khandha consists of every feeling you ever had. The vinnana khandha consist of everything you ever experienced. Etc. And every future rupa, vedana…vinnana moment, will be added to those resp. khandhas. Your experiences will not be added to my vinnana-khandha. This is individual.
At a certain level of wisdom and intensity of concentration one can acces the khandha’s and see what one has experiences before, even in past lifes. That is not me and mine-making. That is just observing like in video what happened in former lifes and in this life too. It is also no grasping, just observing. One knows those were ones past experiences , i belief, in the same way, that you know that it was you who had the first sexual experiene, the first kiss, active in sport, at school etc.
2 Likes
Who are the secular Buddhists?
1 Like
Yes, maybe this can become a focus in this discussion? How can we differentiate? Is that possible or impossible? Can we come to some knowledge which is realiable, trustworthy?
Is experience-based knowledge perse reliable? When is knowledge reliable?
2 Likes
This is the question of epistemology. Seeing the obvious problems in this regard Indians have early on developed intricate systems of and debates about epistemology
See for example
Bhatt, Mehrotra - Buddhist Epistemology, or
Tuske - Indian Epistemology and Metaphysics
3 Likes
I don’t think it’s about being open minded it’s more about whether those concepts are necessary or not
if people can cease craving without believing in rebirth and kamma then there’s no need to believe them and there’s no need to disbelieve them too since cessation of craving is cessation of suffering
1 Like