Not Self and Reincarnation in Buddhism

[whathappened]

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.

Do 'those with wisdom' look back?

It's funny that as humans we often construct a sense of biological continuity with family trees or family history and tradition.

Then it might be funny too that we often are suckers of a sense of idealogical continuity with religion trees or school 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.

Not sure whether genes carry personalities. But surely sociological factors are largely responsible for the inheritance of personalities. Could karma be something of an aggregate of sociological factors?

[Paulclem]

Do 'those with wisdom' look back?

After attaining a certain spiritual level, practitioners become aware of their previous lives. This arises from their practice. I read once that a Realised Buddhist Teacher is then able to draw on relevant experiences to illustrate the path. So perhaps they do.

Then it might be funny too that we often are suckers of a sense of idealogical continuity with religion trees or school history and tradition.

You have to judge for yourself as to whether you will be suckered by a religion or not. In Buddhism, the view is that having a tradition of teacher to teacher transmission of the path preserves them and adds authority.

My point was that we give a lot of credence to family history and family tradition etc, on the basis of continuity of a bloodline or genes, but these have little meaning - from the Buddhist perspective - except as a list of antecedents which often excludes rather than includes. The Buddhist view - particularly the Mahayana - is to stress the interrelatedness of all beings.

Not sure whether genes carry personalities. But surely sociological factors are largely responsible for the inheritance of personalities. Could karma be something of an aggregate of sociological factors?

I don't know, but lots of things are claimed by scientists.

Nature or nurture? I think nurture has a large influence on the development of personality. Karma certainly directs rebirth into an appropriate environment - so I suppose so. That's not the end of the story though, as we have choice, and can perform positive or negative actions according to our view at the time.

[whathappened]

I read once that a Realised Buddhist Teacher is then able to draw on relevant experiences to illustrate the path.

Since the past of This life can also be illuminating, it is important to see the usual continuities. Do buddhists believe that this is less important than seeing continuities between lifetimes? For the study of history the two efforts are continuous.

My point was that we give a lot of credence to family history and family tradition etc, on the basis of continuity of a bloodline or genes, but these have little meaning - from the Buddhist perspective - except as a list of antecedents which often excludes rather than includes.

You can tell the lonely old folk at the library looking for his family tree 'hey gran you got to get out there embracing the streets and try to feel at home with everybody' if and only if you open Your arms for one. Otherwise just leave the good man be, I say, he will be fine.

Karma certainly directs rebirth into an appropriate environment

Thanks for this point. Something in common between karma and the sociology. Got a good discovery.

[NikolaiI]

The truth is, there is no karma, and no rebirth. They are part of the illusion that is samsara.

[Paulclem]

Since the past of This life can also be illuminating, it is important to see the usual continuities. Do buddhists believe that this is less important than seeing continuities between lifetimes? For the study of history the two efforts are continuous.

No - you have to deal with the here and now, and it is this that provides the material for your own progress alng the path. In a sense, past lives don't matter too much as a practitioner - unless they are highly realised - won't be able to perceive them. Where you are going to end up is more important. By laying positive seeds, then a practitioner can attain a fortunate rebirth with which to continue. The attitude of the teachings is that people are subject to delusions and so need to deal with them now - as a sick person needs medical treatment.

You can tell the lonely old folk at the library looking for his family tree 'hey gran you got to get out there embracing the streets and try to feel at home with everybody' if and only if you open Your arms for one. Otherwise just leave the good man be, I say, he will be fine.
.

The truth is, there is no karma, and no rebirth. They are part of the illusion that is samsara.

This isn't the starting point in Buddhism though Nik. There's a lot of teachimg and study involved in your statement.

[NikolaiI]

True. There's a lot written by masters and teachers and other monks and nuns about the difference between the gradual path and immediate realization. Studying these help us to train and develop our understanding. But it doesn't hurt to hear some of the more esoteric truths all along the path. Otherwise we'll be resistant to them and have a harder time progressing. After all there is no fixed rate of progress.

[Paulclem]

I can see that - preparing the ground.

[NikolaiI]

Right, like to graze the Avatamsaka sutra, the Heart Sutra, or others along with it. At least this has always been my approach. It's good to explore for oneself, and determine what calls to the heart as being most true and most beneficial - as well as going through all the steps of learning in the common way.

[whathappened]

The attitude of the teachings is that people are subject to delusions and so need to deal with them now - as a sick person needs medical treatment.

'The past does not matter' would be an astonishing thing to say, as much as 'if part of something seems right then the whole is likely to be right' and of course 'we have previous lives'. Medical treatments come from examining symptoms as a study of history. If I recall right you said Buddhism emphasizes the knowledge of causes. Is not this knowledge that illumiates the path ahead?

It's good to explore for oneself

Yep, and now and then it comes to the point of sharing your discoveries with others, for great and otherwise necessary progress. I do not think it good to be in the habit of thinking alone.

There's a lot of teachimg and study involved in your statement.

So Nik is the master here. Then a sincere question for Nik, what is 'no self'? If you want to quote an answer you made in the past or someone else did, please do.

btw, please feel free to share your latest interpretation of 'no self, PC.

[NikolaiI]

I will honestly answer you. No self means that emptiness is form, and form is emptiness. Zen masters speak of oneness. I will explain the concept of oneness and no self.

Alan Watts wrote an article about his experience of the divine consciousness. My experience differed in several respects and was similar in many ways. One instance toward the height of my vision was parallel to Watts. The instance of this was so striking, that I had experienced, fully, the specific part of the experience which he described, and that his sentence in his article depicted it so perfectly, I knew there was no doubt that he had experienced the same, and that the instant and the experience was real.

What no self means is that the entire universe is empty, it is appearance, it is in change. What it means that it is empty means that you are, now, where you are, at the final place - the end, the ultimate goal, the final end. There is nowhere or nothing else than where you are now, and what you perceive now. It is only perception that keeps you from the truth. The ultimate ground of reality is nowhere farther than where you are at this moment.

Oneness means that you are one with the universe, with life. The meaning of no self is that you are connected to the ground of reality - all the 'things' in the universe are interconnected and interdependent. Nothing exists separate from other 'things.' The meaning of no self and oneness is this, that I experienced and am experiencing now - I will use Alan Watts' words: The elusive substance beneath all the forms of the universe is discovered as the immediate gesture of my hand.

I cannot prove this to you and proofs don't mean much anyway. I can only tell you this that I experienced this. Not self, interconnection/interdependence, and oneness are all related. Also related is the concept of Buddha-nature, and Original mind. Really this understanding is the highest consciousness I've known. When I saw this, I had progressed beyond duality, and Buddha-nature, and several hours of revelation in that state. Then I came to a point where I saw that the form of my white blanket was a Lotus Flower. In place of the folds of the blanket I saw the Lotus - the folds of the blanket became the Lotus. And I saw that the cells - the building blocks - of that Lotus were Buddhas, that the Lotus was made of innumerable Buddhas. And those Buddhas were made of innumerable Lotuses, in an infinitely repeating pattern. Then I realized that this was myself, and that the very cells of my body were of the same nature, of this Lotus, the source of reality, the ground of reality, and that they were made of millions of Buddhas. This is what I understand to be infinite pure lands, as described in the Avatamsaka sutra. And in that instant, when I saw that my cells were Buddha-lands, then I also felt what Alan Watts described. And I felt it exactly as he worded it and I cannot word it any better or more accurately. Nothing is left out in what he said. The elusive substance beneath all the forms of the universe is discovered as the immediate gesture of my hand.

And now, in normal consciousness, with meditation on the subject, I can feel that oneness, that peace, beyond all. I hope this has done some good. Take care.

[Paulclem]

'The past does not matter' would be an astonishing thing to say, as much as 'if part of something seems right then the whole is likely to be right' and of course 'we have previous lives'. Medical treatments come from examining symptoms as a study of history. If I recall right you said Buddhism emphasizes the knowledge of causes. Is not this knowledge that illumiates the path ahead?

I don't think so. Remember your current life is caused by your former life and so forth, and so there is a relationship between your current position, problems etc.

Medical treatments and medical history are important of course, but i wasn't referring to that. I was thinking more along the lines that you don't need to focus upon reincarnation and previous lives to progress.

Yes - knowledge of causes, but as regards practice, it is more focused upon realising this and applying it to your current life such as good deeds good lead to positive karma etc. It's aklso important in the study of Buddhism's view of reality.

[whathappened]

Alright. Let's check out PC first.

I don't think so. Remember your current life is caused by your former life and so forth, and so there is a relationship between your current position, problems etc.

It Is caused by your 'previous lives', partly. Another important cause would be the past of your present life. Not sure whether you agree with this?

you don't need to focus upon reincarnation and previous lives to progress.

Perhaps you don't Necessarily need to do this. But in some if not many cases it helps, by comparison and contrast. 'Previous life' can be used as a source of knowledge this way, just like any other sort of history/experience.

Yes - knowledge of causes, but as regards practice, it is more focused upon realising this and applying it to your current life

The getting of knowledge seems to be the most difficult, especially if knowledge means true propositions. If I see the old man ditched by his children looking for his family tree, and if I fail to know the true and very real need/meaning behind his act, I might think that old age makes people funny. But if I understand him I would be Natually prompted to make him feel welcomed in this library, that is, to do the right thing. It is another issue whether this thing is right or not. For me it would not be right just because of karma, as I do not know whether karma is real.

Now I see your problem with my interpretation of no-self. You seem to think that focusing on history does more bad than good, whereas my interpretation emphasizes history.

I will honestly answer you.

Thank you. Nothing else is expected.

The meaning of no self is that you are connected to the ground of reality - all the 'things' in the universe are interconnected and interdependent.

I like this meaning, because I agree that all things are interconnected. In practice this would imply that when we think about something we should pay attention to other things. When I think about 'me' I should pay attention to other things. The question is what other things? Stars in the sky, or more like the ideas of my mind and the past and present things and events by which my ideas formed?

I cannot prove this to you

You do not need to prove that all things are interconnected, nor that divine experience exists. Many already did.

proofs don't mean much anyway

Consequences mean everything. Proofs prepare us for consequences. I would not spend much time or effort on something that is merely asserted to grant wonderful stuff, as I see no proof. Divine experience is not necessarily proof for whatever the object is asserted. Proof is something real And sign-ificant (causally connected to the object).

Then I came to a point where I saw that the form of my white blanket was a Lotus Flower. In place of the folds of the blanket I saw the Lotus - the folds of the blanket became the Lotus. And I saw that the cells - the building blocks - of that Lotus were Buddhas, that the Lotus was made of innumerable Buddhas. And those Buddhas were made of innumerable Lotuses, in an infinitely repeating pattern. Then I realized that this was myself, and that the very cells of my body were of the same nature, of this Lotus, the source of reality, the ground of reality, and that they were made of millions of Buddhas.

Assuming that the vision/reality proves your interpretation of the idea of budda-nature, what is the use of it? What is the use of seeing a reality which is that your body is a lotus made of an infinity of a sitting Hindu man? I can see some use in this, as any poetically minded person can. But is there more?

Take care.

People take cares for their purposes. My purpose here is to seek knowledge together with people who Are after knowledge. My care is taken for that end.

[Paulclem]

It Is caused by your 'previous lives', partly. Another important cause would be the past of your present life. Not sure whether you agree with this?

Certainly. The problem with previous lives is that they are difficult to perceive unless one has quite a lot of meditational experience. In referring to teachers using the knowledge of previous lives and their stuations, I was referring to advanced teachers. Also, you would want to avoid the involvement with past life and issues until you were able to cope - you were meditationally strong enough to deal with them as they obviously involve birth, ageing, sickness, death, seperation etc etc

Apparently there comes a point in practice where you can remember every dharma teaching you have ever had and apply it to your teaching tasks.

[Paulclem]

The getting of knowledge seems to be the most difficult, especially if knowledge means true propositions. If I see the old man ditched by his children looking for his family tree, and if I fail to know the true and very real need/meaning behind his act, I might think that old age makes people funny. But if I understand him I would be Natually prompted to make him feel welcomed in this library, that is, to do the right thing. It is another issue whether this thing is right or not. For me it would not be right just because of karma, as I do not know whether karma is real.

Now I see your problem with my interpretation of no-self. You seem to think that focusing on history does more bad than good, whereas my interpretation emphasizes history.

It depends what you mean by knowledge. In Buddhism there's academic knowledgeof the path, but this alone will not help you along the path. You also need meditational experience and teachings from a teacher - a qualified teacher. You also need to take the meditational experience into your daily life and apply it, and reflect upon the teaching in and out of meditation.

Later - when advancedenough and properly prepared, you might want to engage in a retreat to fully focus upon your meditational tasks. This can only be done by those with the time. opportunity and funds.

Your story about the old man and family tree/ history. Onre of the things about dealing with others is to develop compassion. One of the criticisms of The Buddha's approach has been the "Why aren't you out there doing something instead of spending your time meditating" type idea. Well the Buddhist's point of view is that one helps the other. You can deepen your compassion, or any positive emotion by following the path, and this then helps with external issues and dealing with difficult situations and people.

Are we talking about the same kind of history? I don't think focusing on personal or family history is bad, but it's not necessarily related to the spiritual path.

If you're talking about rebirth history - well as I pointed out above, it's very difficult to access this. Some methods, such as regression with hypnosis have been tried, but these have been called into question as to whether they are actually true and not a fantasy delusion. Of course it's very difficult to find out, but they are not usually given much credence.

[Paulclem]

People take cares for their purposes. My purpose here is to seek knowledge together with people who Are after knowledge. My care is taken for that end.

This is an interesting statement. What's your background?