Not Self and Reincarnation in Buddhism

[Paulclem]

This part I do not understand, except in the way I tried before, that the I is a confusion (not just a fusion of sensual aggregates), an illusion seen as the cause of things we cause.

It is part of the teaching on the ultimate nature of reality. In truth it can't be understood purely through the intellect, but requires experience through meditation - usually. I have only roughly sketched out the idea, and would be wary of trying to explain too much for fear of misleading. It does need teaching from someone qualified - ie, someone who has attained it.

[Paulclem]

I have no doubt. Mind and body affect each other. Western medicine seems a bit backward on this, however, is catching up thanks partly to Buddhism.

The Greek hero seems to have no problem killing things and people to get back his throne and woman.

You're right. I think psychology has benefitted from Buddhist teachings too. The Western model is so limited, and Freud's view was so skewed as to be positively unhelpful.

I know what you mean about the random killing. Vicious too in the retribution he takes on - is a former servant? I supose it reflects the violence of the times.

[whathappened]

Hi PC,

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

my question is what is your view on the tri-relation? Thanks to our discussion I see a view on this relation but it is a bit vague hence want your or anyone else's view.

The story goes that he wondered if the path was too difficult for humans to understand and so the God Brahma asked him to teach humans and pointed out that there were some beings who had "only a little dust" in their eyes.

That the Buddha saw himself as a superman teacher would cause many frowns, and is The problematic part in the way of life of just(only)-teaching. Socrates and Confucius thought living as just a teacher a poor way to learn whereas Shakyamuni and Christ presented themselves as having mythic powers. Shakyamuni alluded to Sanskrit beliefs predated him while Christ alluded to Greco-Judeo beliefs predated him. It seems that one who just teaches makes use of traditional beliefs involving myth powers. Could it be that if we take their words for granted we would have easier time becoming initiated but difficult time becoming understanding? It is understanding teachers Ultimately want us to have I hope.

I wouldn't worry about being unconvinced by reincarnation.

My rough guess is reincarnation is originally a Sanskrit myth to explain how it be possible that a person (who sees through the I illusion) acurately thinks and feels for another being.

I have only roughly sketched out the idea, and would be wary of trying to explain too much for fear of misleading. It does need teaching from someone qualified - ie, someone who has attained it.

If your pleasure to explain then have no fear for misleading me. Am not looking for teachers' views but views because as you say we cannot be sure who the enlightened are.

I think psychology has benefitted from Buddhist teachings too. The Western model is so limited, and Freud's view was so skewed as to be positively unhelpful.

Yep I think it is a shame that Psychology and Medicine are seperate traditionally.

I supose it reflects the violence of the times.

The story seems to be about being clever with killing and deceiving monsters and enemies for throne and woman, and the one who does this is presented as a hero. This seems to be the common reading. You said Odyssey is a good read but under what reading can a Buddhist appreciate it? The reading that Homer was trying to tell us not to be heroic? I think this might be true for Iliad but not Odyssey, otherwise it would be a bit like Dante showing hell Just to scare us.

[Paulclem]

That the Buddha saw himself as a superman teacher would cause many frowns, and is The problematic part in the way of life of just(only)-teaching. Socrates and Confucius thought living as just a teacher a poor way to learn whereas Shakyamuni and Christ presented themselves as having mythic powers. Shakyamuni alluded to Sanskrit beliefs predated him while Christ alluded to Greco-Judeo beliefs predated him. It seems that one who just teaches makes use of traditional beliefs involving myth powers. Could it be that if we take their words for granted we would have easier time becoming initiated but difficult time becoming understanding? It is understanding teachers Ultimately want us to have I hope.

.

It would if he presented himself that way, but it is clear that he did not, but lived life a a monk. It's true that The Buddha was born into a Hindu environment, and his early life is taken up studying under various teachers. He ultimately transcended or rejected their teachings as not providing the answers he sought for. His path is very different - radically different from the accepted wisdom of the time which promoted eternalism in the form of a soul - Hindu, or annihilation - sceptics. (This debate rages even now on litne with the scientific people often locking horns with the religious). What the Buddha proposed was the Middle way - neither annihilation nor an eternal soul. Instead he taught that as one moment causes the next, so one life causes the next without the passing over of an eternal part from this life to the next one.

There are stories of The Buddha demonstrating miracle powers if the result was for a positive person. Demonstrating miracle powers is forbidden unless it is for a good reason. Miracle powers are by-products of meditational prowess, not bestowed, and not the point of the practice. In fact it can be a serious distraction that can lead a practitioner off the path. I used to think it funny that a Buddhist could easily believe Christ could perform miracles as an advanced spiritual practitioner, whereas some christians can not.

[whathappened]

Hi PC what you say dispels not the suspicion that Shakyamuni might have told noble lies. It comes down to the ideas, to whether they seem sound. I present my views on the ideas in illustrated and succinct fashion. They are meant to be criticised.

1. Reincarnation, for the Hindus who made the idea, means 'I know you so well, I must have been you before I was born'.

2. No-self, for Shakyamuni, means 'I think and feel this thing this way, but hang on a minute, it is not exactly I which think and feel it this way'.

3. Shakyamuni believed in noself but not reincarnation. Difficult to see how one believing in the former would believe in the latter. Easy to see why one living to teach and teaching to live would teach the latter that is part of a web of ideas concerning afterlife, an attractive concern.

4. For someone thoughtful as Shakyamuni most wordly pursuits become boring due to his ability to overcome the self and encompass the other, while making people around him more thoughtful becomes most interesting.

5. Life-as-teacher is common among the thoughtful, except some do not come across so much as teacher and not student. Teaching is not the best way to learn, but learning is the ultimate interest for the thoughtful.

[Paulclem]

My rough guess is reincarnation is originally a Sanskrit myth to explain how it be possible that a person (who sees through the I illusion) acurately thinks and feels for another being.

The Hindu tradition of reincarnation predates the Buddha, and he was brought up in the belief system. It is a different belief system though in that, as reflected in caste, each person has theri station in life. If they do their duty well, then they will be reincarnated into a higher level. This is a very rigid system, still prevalent in India and causes no end of problems. It limits what little social mobility there is, and means that if you are born a rag picker, a rag picker you are likely to stay.

The Buddha's system of reincarnation is about personal karma and the motivation - good and bad for acts committed in life. Whereas the Hindu system has the belief in a soul - Atman - The Budha's does not. Of course o-one can prove the veracity of this teaching, but the Advanced practitioners report that this is so, and describe an intermediate state in Tibetan Buddhism called the Bardo, which is a bit like a dream world between lives. There are practices which can take the practitioner back through theri previous lives.

The story seems to be about being clever with killing and deceiving monsters and enemies for throne and woman, and the one who does this is presented as a hero. This seems to be the common reading. You said Odyssey is a good read but under what reading can a Buddhist appreciate it? The reading that Homer was trying to tell us not to be heroic? I think this might be true for Iliad but not Odyssey, otherwise it would be a bit like Dante showing hell Just to scare us.

The story follws the Heroic tradition of the ancient world where honour and the creed of the Hero are held above anything else - compassion, love etc. I agree it is vicious and Odysseus is not a nice hero - more of a bully boy. It is interesting as a historical account of the past, for what it says about life, but also the myth of the hero tradition. (I read it quite a few years ago).

The book I've just started - James Joyce's Ulysses has a link with this tradition through the context of WW1, which was happening at the time of writing. Although I can view things with Buddhist eyes, I am also interested in literature, and have bought The Odyssey again in order to inform me about Joyce's book.

Hi PC what you say dispels not the suspicion that Shakyamuni might have told noble lies. It comes down to the ideas, to whether they seem sound. I present my views on the ideas in illustrated and succinct fashion. They are meant to be criticised.

1. Reincarnation, for the Hindus who made the idea, means 'I know you so well, I must have been you before I was born'.

2. No-self, for Shakyamuni, means 'I think and feel this thing this way, but hang on a minute, it is not exactly I which think and feel it this way'.

3. Shakyamuni believed in noself but not reincarnation. Difficult to see how one believing in the former would believe in the latter. Easy to see why one living to teach and teaching to live would teach the latter that is part of a web of ideas concerning afterlife, an attractive concern.

4. For someone thoughtful as Shakyamuni most wordly pursuits become boring due to his ability to overcome the self and encompass the other, while making people around him more thoughtful becomes most interesting.

5. Life-as-teacher is common among the thoughtful, except some do not come across so much as teacher and not student. Teaching is not the best way to learn, but learning is the ultimate interest for the thoughtful.

1. Reincarnation, for the Hindus who made the idea, means 'I know you so well, I must have been you before I was born'.

In Buddhism, the idea of reincarnation is based upon meditative experience. The Buddha is said to have become aware of his former lives during meditation. I wouldn't say that was so for Hindis either. they too have a meditative tradition, and one of his teachers taught the method to attain one of the formless heavens - to be reborn there.

No-self, for Shakyamuni, means 'I think and feel this thing this way, but hang on a minute, it is not exactly I which think and feel it this way'.

This is simplistic, but somewhere towards the teachings. If you or I have a self - an existing self that is an integral part of our being, then where is it? Upon examination in meditation, Buddhists have not found an existing self. What they find is a fluctuating collection of sense aggregates with mental factors that give the impression of a self to the undiscerning mind.

3. Shakyamuni believed in noself but not reincarnation. Difficult to see how one believing in the former would believe in the latter. Easy to see why one living to teach and teaching to live would teach the latter that is part of a web of ideas concerning afterlife, an attractive concern.

I understand your view - it is difficult to understand and really can't be appreciated without meditative investigation. I don't know why The Buddha would teach reincarnation if he didn't believe it. I assume your saying that he taught reincarnation because it was a sop to his followers, a bit like it is claimed heaven is a sop to christians. I think the complexity of the Buddha's view of reincarnation is at issue here. Reincarnation as taught is not the reincarnation of me or I, but a passage of energy which causes the birth of another being. A classical illustration is one candle flame lighting another and then the first being blown out, The second lit candle is not the first, but is caused by it. This idea of reincarnation is not a comfortable idea. What happens to me? Well what happens to me is what always happens to me - I dissipate because I do not exist in the way I see myself. What I think of as my I is merely a collection of elements labelled as I.

4. For someone thoughtful as Shakyamuni most wordly pursuits become boring due to his ability to overcome the self and encompass the other, while making people around him more thoughtful becomes most interesting.


What a Buddha realises is that there is nothing to be gained by the pursuit of worldly concerns. Boring might be one word, but irrelevant might be the better one. A Buddha's aim is to help sentient beings. The best way to do this might be through teaching.

5. Life-as-teacher is common among the thoughtful, except some do not come across so much as teacher and not student. Teaching is not the best way to learn, but learning is the ultimate interest for the thoughtful.

Perhaps. Who teaches the Teacher? In fact one of the Buddha's titles is Perfect Teacher. I suppose at the top of your game it is natural to pass on wisdom.

By the way I'm a teacher, and I think it is a very good way to learn - teach. But then I'm not a perfect teacher.

[whathappened]

The Hindu tradition of reincarnation predates the Buddha, and he was brought up in the belief system. It is a different belief system though in that, as reflected in caste, each person has theri station in life. If they do their duty well, then they will be reincarnated into a higher level. This is a very rigid system, still prevalent in India and causes no end of problems. It limits what little social mobility there is, and means that if you are born a rag picker, a rag picker you are likely to stay.

The Buddha's system of reincarnation is about personal karma and the motivation - good and bad for acts committed in life. Whereas the Hindu system has the belief in a soul - Atman - The Budha's does not. Of course o-one can prove the veracity of this teaching, but the Advanced practitioners report that this is so, and describe an intermediate state in Tibetan Buddhism called the Bardo, which is a bit like a dream world between lives. There are practices which can take the practitioner back through theri previous lives.

Thanks for the info PC. Indeed nobody can prove the veracity of reincarnation but people believed in it. I guess this means they saw reasons. If you tell me, now an early Hindu, that I had been another person (dead or alive) before I was born, I might deem you right if I and the other person are alike. Maybe not on the outside but more on the inside. We recognise that people being alike is more about the inside.

There should be other reasons for early Hindus to believe in reincarnation. But the above seems straightforward. Compared with the reason 'his father was a rag picker and he is a rag picker so he must have been his father', it seems a stronger reason. Compared with the reason 'I daydreamed quite realistically that I am a legendary king so I was the king', it seems stronger still. Sure am using modern eyes to weigh the reasons, so what seems strong to me might seemed weak to early Hindus. But the above is my best guess given what you told me about early Hindu beliefs.

That Shakyamuni ignored the reasons around reincarnation while just saw the morals, is unlikely. But if there are only poor reasons for the idea, someone reasonable as him would not buy it. If there are only poor morals about the idea, someone moral as him would say anything to get people away from it, and here the 'middle' way would be an effective thing to say.

In Buddhism, the idea of reincarnation is based upon meditative experience.

Might well be but in modern eyes this experience gives no good reason for reincarnation. We dream at night and at day, what is the difference? Sure we get into nightdreams via sleeping whereas into daydreams via meditating or trance. But is this meditation a form of thinking or more of a form of sleeping? Hypnosis can bring people into a state where they invulantarily imagine themselves to be past people. The imagined people tend to belong to types and professions known to the people who are imagining. Dream analysis seem to explain a lot. In comparison reincarnation seems a weaker explanation. The thoughtful Shakyamun, might thought about these. If he did, it is probable that reincarnation in Buddhism is not based on meditation.

What they find is a fluctuating collection of sense aggregates with mental factors that give the impression of a self to the undiscerning mind.

Then there is a self, a fusion/aggregation of fluctuating senses about own mind and body. I agree and I come to suspect that in the Buddhist idea, the fusion takes on the con-prefix. The fusion as an entity is confused with our ideas and bodily goingons, which are the true cause of what we think and feel.

The second lit candle is not the first, but is caused by it. This idea of reincarnation is not a comfortable idea. What happens to me? Well what happens to me is what always happens to me - I dissipate because I do not exist in the way I see myself. What I think of as my I is merely a collection of elements labelled as I.

Am a bit excited to hear this because it seems to support my guesses. The true I, the true cause, is not the sensual aggregate but the web of ideas and body of goingons. The web and body can be common among people from different places, professions and times. If Ashoka seems a lot like me as a person, then by definition of the true I, Ashoka was I and vice-versa. This would make a lot of sense. But one can still suspect that Shakyamuni was being political on the afterlife side of the coin.

What a Buddha realises is that there is nothing to be gained by the pursuit of worldly concerns. Boring might be one word, but irrelevant might be the better one.

I think the issue is on whether the word is 'boring' or 'irrelevant'. I guess the Buddha used to be interested in wordly pursuits but then got bored of them, partly due to him being a prince, partly due to him saw the necessity of pains, last but not least due to him being able to imagine and feel all kinds of wordly pleasures simply by interacting with all walks of life, thanks to his no-self and good 'karma'. For him the interesting thing left is pursuit of knowledge, because 'wordly pursuits' covers just about everything besides knowledge, and all wise men tend to do this.

I suppose at the top of your game it is natural to pass on wisdom.

This I think is what the Buddha suggested and also that people equal to him are all dead. Socrates said he knew nothing. Confucius said that among every three men walking a teacher can be found for him.

The teaching thing in Buddhism and Christianity puts a lot of mindful ones off. This is one reason I think that noble lies conerning super powers etc should be silenced, they tend to have adverse effect for the noble ones who lie. Besides I do not know who 'the awakened one' is because I am not 'awakened', then how do I know Shakyamuni was?

By the way I'm a teacher, and I think it is a very good way to learn - teach.

I think for teaching to be a good way to learn it essentially becomes Sharing. But Shakyamuni strictly taught and his words are worshiped as sutras while his deeds are said to involve miracles. These make Buddhism quite Christian, political. For those who live to teach and teach to live, this is understandable.

I'm not a perfect teacher.

Do not beat yourself up for that, man, is there a perfect teacher one who knows the whole wide world? It seems there is not even one for whom nobody else can be a teacher. It would be a shame if Shakyamuni ceased to seek teachers after his rejection of popular ideas, because the great teachers tend to be unpopular.

[Paulclem]

Thanks for the info PC. Indeed nobody can prove the veracity of reincarnation but people believed in it. I guess this means they saw reasons. If you tell me, now an early Hindu, that I had been another person (dead or alive) before I was born, I might deem you right if I and the other person are alike. Maybe not on the outside but more on the inside. We recognise that people being alike is more about the inside.

There should be other reasons for early Hindus to believe in reincarnation. But the above seems straightforward. Compared with the reason 'his father was a rag picker and he is a rag picker so he must have been his father', it seems a stronger reason. Compared with the reason 'I daydreamed quite realistically that I am a legendary king so I was the king', it seems stronger still. Sure am using modern eyes to weigh the reasons, so what seems strong to me might seemed weak to early Hindus. But the above is my best guess given what you told me about early Hindu beliefs.

That Shakyamuni ignored the reasons around reincarnation while just saw the morals, is unlikely. But if there are only poor reasons for the idea, someone reasonable as him would not buy it. If there are only poor morals about the idea, someone moral as him would say anything to get people away from it, and here the 'middle' way would be an effective thing to say.

Hi Whathappened - sorry for the delay in responding. It's been busy. I think proof of reincarnation can't be provided subjectively - though some have tried such as a Professor Stephenson who collected accounts of children who claimed they were in the wrong family etc. These can be questioned and criticised though.

Evidence can only come from subjective experience of reincarnation. I have my own reasons for believing in reincarnation which are no evidence for someone else.

Another reason is testing the path. If the teachings teach something, and it turns out to be true, then it is more likely that other parts of the teaching are true as well. This has to be taken with the proviso that the Buddha said that no-one should believe anything without testing it out for themselves.

As for the Hindu background - The Buddha's path is a radical departure from the basic tenets of Hinduism at that time. There was still animal sacrifice. There was the idea of a soul - refuted by The Buddha, and reincarnation was a stage by stage progression which underpinned the social caste system and still has effects today.

Might well be but in modern eyes this experience gives no good reason for reincarnation. We dream at night and at day, what is the difference? Sure we get into nightdreams via sleeping whereas into daydreams via meditating or trance. But is this meditation a form of thinking or more of a form of sleeping? Hypnosis can bring people into a state where they invulantarily imagine themselves to be past people. The imagined people tend to belong to types and professions known to the people who are imagining. Dream analysis seem to explain a lot. In comparison reincarnation seems a weaker explanation. The thoughtful Shakyamun, might thought about these. If he did, it is probable that reincarnation in Buddhism is not based on meditation.
.

There is a great difference in dreaming, thinking, daydreaming and meditation. The meditation that involves discovering one's past lives is a long process. What you do is to recap your life, gradually moving backwards with your mind over moments of mind towards childhood and then beyond. I think it is a difficult practice, and I think HH The Dalai Lama said it might be better to develop something like compassion if you are going to devote a long period of meditation to it.

The daydreaming of past lives, involunatary thinking etc is such an unstable event - it is difficult to know whether this is not just fantasy. The hypnotic regression might also be fantasy. One of the interesting things about these regressions is that they don't refer to the mundane lives we will all have led - cowherds, labourers etc. Nor do they come up with non-human existences, which according to teachings, we definately have. In fact it is taught that a human life is very rare.

I can't really comment on dream analysis. If it is freudian or western - then I don't have much regard for it. Other cultures? I don't know about. Interestingly -there are dream practices in Buddhism, where you use the opportunity of sleep to meditate on whatever you are studying. This might be - though I haven't engaged in it - related to lucid dreaming.

I suppose you could say that the Teachings are fantasy too, but the difference is that they have been written and tested by people with great meditational experience, and the teachings on reincarnation are definately based upon this.

Then there is a self, a fusion/aggregation of fluctuating senses about own mind and body. I agree and I come to suspect that in the Buddhist idea, the fusion takes on the con-prefix. The fusion as an entity is confused with our ideas and bodily goingons, which are the true cause of what we think and feel.
.

Yes in the sense that it is a collection of labelled parts, this is true. What is meant is that there is no substantial, or surviving self that goes from life to life. We certainly percieve a self, but we don't look closely. We assume we have an I. It has always been there - we think, and we invest a lot of ourselves in it. I'm this, I'm that. I'm an angry person. We often neglect the fact that we can change. What we think and feel often reflects our defense of the self or I. Deep down we have a pervasive self interest at heart, and it is difficult to actually do a pure, unadulterated good act in the everyday. This defense of the self or I is why people ofte act irrationally as they feel threated over quite minor things. The perception of my I is the root cause of all our suffering it is said.

Am a bit excited to hear this because it seems to support my guesses. The true I, the true cause, is not the sensual aggregate but the web of ideas and body of goingons. The web and body can be common among people from different places, professions and times. If Ashoka seems a lot like me as a person, then by definition of the true I, Ashoka was I and vice-versa. This would make a lot of sense. But one can still suspect that Shakyamuni was being political on the afterlife side of the coin.

.

It is said that it is a combination of both - the sense aggregates and circumstances. I'm not sure if bodygoingson refers to the sense aggregates touch taste sight hearing and mental factors.

The Buddha's life story is a rejection of worldly power and thus politics by implication. He did negotiate a peace in a dispute between two kingdoms though.

I think the issue is on whether the word is 'boring' or 'irrelevant'. I guess the Buddha used to be interested in wordly pursuits but then got bored of them, partly due to him being a prince, partly due to him saw the necessity of pains, last but not least due to him being able to imagine and feel all kinds of wordly pleasures simply by interacting with all walks of life, thanks to his no-self and good 'karma'. For him the interesting thing left is pursuit of knowledge, because 'wordly pursuits' covers just about everything besides knowledge, and all wise men tend to do this.

.

The Buddha's life story is one that has the weight of his karma behind him. he was born into priviledge with every pleasure he wanted. The expectations on the Prince were that he would become the King, and of course his marriage was expected. The story comes to the point where he encounters an old man, a sick man, a corpse and the a Holy man. The impetus is forhim to fulfil his karmic ambition - which is carried over from life to life. In terms of myself - if I can make thatarmic ambition through meditation, reflection, and putting into practice the teachings - then my karmic impetus will be to be reborn somewhere I can become a Buddhist practitioner again. If not - and my karmic impetus is some thing else - then who knows what will happen. (I use I on the understanding that it refers to my spiritual heir - not my present I).

Do not beat yourself up for that, man, is there a perfect teacher one who knows the whole wide world? It seems there is not even one for whom nobody else can be a teacher. It would be a shame if Shakyamuni ceased to seek teachers after his rejection of popular ideas, because the great teachers tend to be unpopular.

Don't worry - I have plenty of people who will do that for me.

The Buddha took a number of teachers in his quest for Enlightenment, but found that they could only teach him so far and he had to move on. He finally had to rely upon his own spiritual journey as there was no teacher that could take him further.

[whathappened]

What you do is to recap your life, gradually moving backwards with your mind over moments of mind towards childhood and then beyond. I think it is a difficult practice, and I think HH The Dalai Lama said it might be better to develop something like compassion if you are going to devote a long period of meditation to it.

I can move back to when I was in the craddle but that is it. Seems strange that compassion is related here. I wonder what is the relation.

We often neglect the fact that we can change.

Ye but not as often as we do not know how to change. I know am a teacher and not forever so, but I do not know how to change it. I feel angry as my faith is questioned and I know I will not feel so forever, but I do not know how to kill it. No-self does not seem to help much unless it says more. As you said a thing about Buddhism is it empowers us by teaching us causes. So I thought no-self does not concern only the fusion but also the confusion.

He did negotiate a peace in a dispute between two kingdoms though.

And he negotiated peace among all beings, it is said, he also asked for food each time before he taught.

The Buddha's life story is one that has the weight of his karma behind him.

My guess is 'the Buddha's life story is one that has the weigh of his imaginations about a hundred different types of beings (dead or live to to come) behind him'. He was so no-self that he got the compassion to make these imaginations sensually so real as if he lived the hundred lives himself.

He finally had to rely upon his own spiritual journey as there was no teacher that could take him further.

There was theories disagreeing with his. Unless the theorists held that theirs were the truth, due to politics or faith or whatever, discussion with them should be beneficial. But I guess the problem you suggest is that he experienced something via meditation that nobody else experienced. If I had not been eating or doing anything much except minding hard about past lives for a long time, and now suddenly experienced visions on past lives, I would not be surprised or excited. I might not buy Freud's stuff but I would think that whatever I was seeing probably was not a truth.

[Paulclem]

I can move back to when I was in the craddle but that is it. Seems strange that compassion is related here. I wonder what is the relation.
.

Yes. I think it involves a particular technique to move beyond the present life, but also some experience of meditation.

Ye but not as often as we do not know how to change. I know am a teacher and not forever so, but I do not know how to change it. I feel angry as my faith is questioned and I know I will not feel so forever, but I do not know how to kill it. No-self does not seem to help much unless it says more. As you said a thing about Buddhism is it empowers us by teaching us causes. So I thought no-self does not concern only the fusion but also the confusion.
.

The idea of no-self is within a mesh of an interlinked worldview. It's very difficult to explain the many facets at once, and so it seems as though ideas like no-self and reincarnation are isolated ideas. This is incorrect. The "how" of reincarnation and no-self are linked by the idea of Dependant Arising - 12 factors that come into play through birth ageing sickness death and rebirth. As I said, these are not beliefs, but are based upon the meditational experience of Buddhist Masters. The Buddhist path is an instruction booklet for anyone - whatever their beliefs- to practice.

And he negotiated peace among all beings, it is said, he also asked for food each time before he taught.
.

The rules are that there is no charge for the dharma. Traditionally, monks would go on an alms round, not asking for food, but receiving it from the population. eople would give what they could and the Monks would receive what was given. What you might be referring to are offerings made to the Buddha.

My guess is 'the Buddha's life story is one that has the weigh of his imaginations about a hundred different types of beings (dead or live to to come) behind him'. He was so no-self that he got the compassion to make these imaginations sensually so real as if he lived the hundred lives himself.

There was theories disagreeing with his. Unless the theorists held that theirs were the truth, due to politics or faith or whatever, discussion with them should be beneficial. But I guess the problem you suggest is that he experienced something via meditation that nobody else experienced. If I had not been eating or doing anything much except minding hard about past lives for a long time, and now suddenly experienced visions on past lives, I would not be surprised or excited. I might not buy Freud's stuff but I would think that whatever I was seeing probably was not a truth.

There's no guessing about it. Not only The Buddha, but other Masters teach reincarnation on the basis of their experience. It is not about imagination in the way that you describe.

Meditation is focused, with a purpose and now has clear instructions preferably with the guidance of a teacher. The visions he had of past lives arose as a kind of by-product of his meditational experience. he was after all trying to find the path that would lead beings from suffering in the round of lives called Samsara.

What's your spiritual background - if you don't mind me asking?

[whathappened]

a particular technique to move beyond the present life

Man you would leave us hanging at this point?

It's very difficult to explain the many facets at once

Expected no such explanation but that you address my idea and its supporting reasons. This is a forum where people Discuss, no?

no charge for the dharma.

Did not suggest that he sold the dharma. But that he knew the rule of exchange. He wanted things from others. Maybe not just food but also to meet the public mind somewhere.

There's no guessing about it.

My 'spiritual background' says the rule is that everything is interpretation. I would keep this rule in mind if someone asserts something heard from someone else who heard from a third and so on back to he who lived two thousand years ago in an alien culture. Would you?

It is not about imagination in the way that you describe.

The way I describe involves a link-up of noself, reincarnation and life as teacher. I gave reasons. Was your turn a while ago. Before you experience what you think others experience, maybe give some consideration to my reasons? What you say man, would it hurt?

[Paulclem]

Man you would leave us hanging at this point?

Expected no such explanation but that you address my idea and its supporting reasons. This is a forum where people Discuss, no?

Did not suggest that he sold the dharma. But that he knew the rule of exchange. He wanted things from others. Maybe not just food but also to meet the public mind somewhere.

My 'spiritual background' says the rule is that everything is interpretation. I would keep this rule in mind if someone asserts something heard from someone else who heard from a third and so on back to he who lived two thousand years ago in an alien culture. Would you?

The way I describe involves a link-up of noself, reincarnation and life as teacher. I gave reasons. Was your turn a while ago. Before you experience what you think others experience, maybe give some consideration to my reasons? What you say man, would it hurt?

I know of the meditation of previous lives, but don't know the details -sorry. I stated an assumption about the method, and perhaps i was wrong to say it that way. The only thing I can say for certain is that it takes a long time, and is not necessarily worth the effort when you could be doing a more constructive practice - here I am paraphrasing HH The Dalai Lama.

Did not suggest that he sold the dharma. But that he knew the rule of exchange. He wanted things from others. Maybe not just food but also to meet the public mind somewhere.

There's more of a tradition of offerings from people with that background. i think we're saying the same thing.

My 'spiritual background' says the rule is that everything is interpretation. I would keep this rule in mind if someone asserts something heard from someone else who heard from a third and so on back to he who lived two thousand years ago in an alien culture. Would you?

Yes I'd go with that. It was the word guess, which I took to mean speculate in a looser way than interpret. In fact The Buddha's advice is to be self reliant and question the teachings, and so your approach is correct. I think it's a sensible approach for any kind of study.

The way I describe involves a link-up of noself, reincarnation and life as teacher. I gave reasons. Was your turn a while ago. Before you experience what you think others experience, maybe give some consideration to my reasons? What you say man, would it hurt?

Yes - as I said above, it's important to make your own sense and then be open to suggestions/ teachings.
No-self anf reincarnation are linked technically in the sense that the dissolution of the self allows reincarnation into another being. It's presented as a process rediscovered. The Buddha's life as a teacher is a virtuous profession, but he had to choose this way, and was asked to do so. This is a reqirement in Buddhism that you request teachings from a teacher before they can teach you. There's no proselytizing.

I don't think I'm contributing to your thoughts on no-self, reincarnation and teaching. I think I need to ponder it some more. Certainly the difficulty of the idea of no-self is radically different and difficult to realise without meditational experience. I'll think some more, but I may be at the edge of my knowledge of it.

[whathappened]

The only thing I can say for certain is that it takes a long time.

Man how can I be sure how long it takes if what I know about the the path is very limited. 'Am sure it takes a decade to get to Atlantis but not sure how to get there'?

is not necessarily worth the effort when you could be doing a more constructive practice

I agree that taking care of feelings can be the extra element needed to make things proceed. But if you find you have to make a habit of it then would not it be time to switch group?

It was the word guess, which I took to mean speculate in a looser way than interpret.

Then you probably find my ideas loose, which is ok as they are not apparantly supported by the texts. But the texts are very old and seem odd. I do not consider odd interpretations most likely candidates. Is not this the best I can do? 'Past lives' seems odd so I try to make sense of it and this yeilds an interpretation different from what the words apparantly suggest.

Regarding no-self the many-facets interpretation seems loose, to speak my mind. If you like why not list these facets so we can check how well or not the confusion interpretation or any other interpretation explains them.

[Paulclem]

I agree that taking care of feelings can be the extra element needed to make things proceed. But if you find you have to make a habit of it then would not it be time to switch group?

.

The standard Buddhist practices don't usually include this meditation on going back over lives. They tend to focus upon concentration, developing compassion, and eradicating negative traits such as anger by employing antidotes - in this case patience.

Summed up, the Buddhist path involves stopping evil actions, cultivating virtuous actions and purifying the mind.

[Paulclem]

Then you probably find my ideas loose, which is ok as they are not apparantly supported by the texts. But the texts are very old and seem odd. I do not consider odd interpretations most likely candidates. Is not this the best I can do? 'Past lives' seems odd so I try to make sense of it and this yeilds an interpretation different from what the words apparantly suggest.

Regarding no-self the many-facets interpretation seems loose, to speak my mind. If you like why not list these facets so we can check how well or not the confusion interpretation or any other interpretation explains them.

But the texts are very old and seem odd.

Yes. You are better off reading a modern commentary. The older texts are written in a way that reflects the oral transmission.

'Past lives' seems odd so I try to make sense of it and this yeilds an interpretation different from what the words apparantly suggest.

Speaking for myself, it is a work in progress. I discover things all the time, and after twenty years of reading and discussing it, am seeing different angles all the time.

Regarding no-self the many-facets interpretation seems loose, to speak my mind. If you like why not list these facets so we can check how well or not the confusion interpretation or any other interpretation explains them

The self is made up of aggregates:

touch, taste, feeling, hearing, smell and mental factors.

The sensory input from the senses gives us an idea of an I, a self. Our culture, family, self esteem, daily interactions, history, relatonships tc etc gives a sense of history and continuity. All beings, except those with wisdom, have this sense of an I. They have had this sense in all their previous lives.

It's funny that as humans we often construct a sense of biological continuity with family trees or family history and tradition. According to Buddhist thought, this iological continuity is just that - a passing on of genes, but not personality etc, as beings are reincarnated according to Karma.

I haven't posted for a while on here. Apologies.