AndrewRayGorman wrote:I have been curious as to if anyone here has attained the 4th jhana state and been able to verify their past lives? The concept of rebirth is one I have yet to accept, if ever, but otherwise I have accepted most of the rest of the dhamma because I have personally found it to be true.
It depends on how the person you are asking understands the concept of "rebirth"
you will get different answers from monks/nuns that understand it via being alive in a previous existence a some being (human, god, animal) or from monks/nuns who understand it as a psychological birth of identity in each mind moment
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
AndrewRayGorman wrote:I have been curious as to if anyone here has attained the 4th jhana state and been able to verify their past lives? The concept of rebirth is one I have yet to accept, if ever, but otherwise I have accepted most of the rest of the dhamma because I have personally found it to be true.
I think your approach to all this is all wrong. Even if you found someone on here to say they verified past lives you'd still be skeptical. Personally, I've always been very open to the idea and for me it's made a lot of sense. It certainly explains why I was born with the personality I have. No one is a blank slate when they're born. Also, ever since I've framed my life within karma and rebirth it's transformed how I live. I suddenly take responsibility for my life and the situation I'm in. I also strive to walk a wholesome path moving forward. Anyway, there's plenty to practice within Buddhism without requiring you to believe in past lives.
Digity wrote:Anyway, there's plenty to practice within Buddhism without requiring you to believe in past lives.
Indeed. Even if one had "verified rebirth personally", I'm struggling to see much in the way of advantage. Does it give insight into dukkha, anatta or anicca? If anything, I would have thought it might reinforce the sense of self and "I" to see that "I" existed previously before being "reincarnated" here.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Digity wrote:Anyway, there's plenty to practice within Buddhism without requiring you to believe in past lives.
Indeed. Even if one had "verified rebirth personally", I'm struggling to see much in the way of advantage. Does it give insight into dukkha, anatta or anicca?
It worked for the Buddha.
If anything, I would have thought it might reinforce the sense of self and "I" to see that "I" existed previously before being "reincarnated" here.
There is always that danger, but it is in the seeing the interdependent rise and fall of the aspects of what makes up the stream that would break up any sense of a solid, lasting, self-identical over time "I."
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Without looking up the sutta to confirm, I think it gave him insight into kamma more than it did the three characteristics.
The ability to see past lives was not claimed to be a meditative attainment restricted exclusively to the Buddhasasana.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Without looking up the sutta to confirm, I think it gave him insight into kamma more than it did the three characteristics.
The ability to see past lives was not claimed to be a meditative attainment restricted exclusively to the Buddhasasana.
Metta,
Retro.
Hi retro
That is true, but there seems to be a difference between how the "outsiders" see past lives, in contrast to the Buddhist practitioners.
Based on DN 1, it appears that the access to past lives gained by the outsiders was facilitated by factors which are not matched to the standard Buddhist model found in DN 2.
The Vinaya described Devadatta's iddhis as puthujjanika iddhi, obviously a foil to ariya iddhi. If one looks at the DN 2 model, the iddhis actually occur sequentially AFTER the vipassana refrain. Perhaps this vipassana refrain marks the transition from a puthujjana to an ariyan? I suspect that what distinguishes the standard Buddhist use of past-life recollection is that it is supported by vipassana (as used in DN 2) and therefore qualifies as ariya iddhi.
A good point that someone brought up earlier was to ask the question would anyone who did remember a past life be inclined to post about it on this board and in this thread?
If they were, would it be good enough for people?
What if the person didn't do a Dr. Stevenson thing and verify that there was such a person in the past with public records of that person and verify that they wouldn't have come across those records in the course of their daily life?
I've heard that Dr. Stevenson's work is voluminous and dry, but I read this review for an interesting book about Stevenson himself and his last fact finding tour before he retired:
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
As significant as Dr. Stevenson's work is, I think it would strengthen the case for rebirth if examples of other research were provided. Excessive reliance on one person's work is a liability -- it suggests non-replicability, anomaly or methodological problems. Theories gain credibility when they are supported by plentiful research conducted by different sources.
Not bashing Stevenson here or those who have mentioned him -- it's just that I suspect he may be hurting the case more than helping. It's come to the point that whenever I see a Buddhist article or discussion of the subject, I already know how the argument will proceed...."Yes, there is scientific evidence for rebirth.... a man named Dr. Ian Stevenson researched hundreds of cases...blah blah...thus rebirth is a valid scientific theory!" Frankly this is about the level of sophistication we find on The 700 Club (this just in! new evidence for Noah's Ark found in Turkey!)
You are absolutely right, but I think Dr. Stevenson's work is the only game in town.
I don't know what the original poster's motivation but my guess would s/he wanted to know if there was any weight to the idea of rebirth. In that regard, Stevenson's work which involved small children with no access to public records probably has more weight that an adult on the internet, who does, making claims.
For the record, I'm an agnostic in regards to rebirth. I would probably be an atheist in regards to rebirth without my association with Buddhism. My view is that there is a "dependent origination" with beliefs. If you have a lot of contact with people or texts who repeat an idea, it comes to seem more reasonable to you independent of evidence.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
It seems to me that a lot of it has to do with personal identity. Am I the same person I was yesterday? And would my memory of yesterday be any more problematic in overcoming my belief in a self than if I experienced a memory of a past life?
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
