new interpretation of samsara and patisandhi from my experience

[soogar571]

I have two heartbreaking memories. The first, one day while I was a senior in high school and not at home, my mother died with cerebral hemorrhage at the age of 47. Later, I was told from my father she was dolefully calling my name until her death. The second, on early spring day of 11 years ago, my first daughter suddenly died of brain cancer at the age of 21. These sad stories are presented just for the opening of next cases that are hard for you to accept as true.
case 1. It was one of holiday when I and wife's cousin stayed at home with the 2 years old first daughter just started learning to speak while my wife went out for a couple of errands to do. At that time, I was sitting on the floor then my toddling baby came to me and said twice, oh my baby son! oh my baby son! with patting my head. I and wife's cousin astonished but can not understand the situation because I had no knowledge about samsara(round of rebirth) and patisandhi(rebirth). I only guessed that did my mother's ghost came temporarily? Since then, such things never again. Although she looks quite mature for her age through during the process of growing up.
case 2. There is a video on the internet that may be a more reliable evidence for the samsara and patisadhi.(American child in Louisiana)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54FluHg ... e=youtu.be
Among the three normal deaths in Abidhamma-sangaha or Visuddhimagga, in the case of the death with which the mental life span is still left but the physical life span is over, it will be born again in the same world and live only within the span of mental life that has not yet used in the previous life. In addition, according to these books, the last follow-up-process(javana) at the moment of death takes one of three things(the kamma, the representation of kamma, the representation of the place to be born ) as the object(ārammana), and the next life is determined by the object(ārammana).
I was told from my father my mother was dolefully calling my name until her death. So it is very likely that she was targeting me(soogar) as a "representation of kamma" at the time of her death. If all the contents mentioned above are summed up, it could be inferred that the dead mother has reborn as my daughter and died after living within the span of mental life that has not yet used in the previous life.
At first glance, this reasoning seems to be countering the theory of Theravada because there is 13 years gap between the mother's death and daughter's birth.(The next life begins immediately after death according to the theory of Theravada that does not allows intermediate-life.) However, the 13 years gap is actually not a gap in the view of kamma(thought-system) because the time begins to flow after receiving the body. Therefore, I can not say that my reasoning is definitely wrong.
As you can see from the two cases above, the memory of the past life no longer affects the current life after setting up the self-consciousness of 'I' at age around 3 which is distinct from the previous life. To be precise, the memories of past lives are still there, but the pointers needed to access them seem to be broken. The evidence for this is that the Buddha who has mastered the threefold-knowledge(te-vijja) said "I also remember the names, status, and appearance of my many previous lives." D17, A9:20, A3:15, D19, M83, A9:20.
On the basis of the contents above, I'm writing down several my opinions as a kind of conclusion about samsara(round of rebirth) and patisandhi(rebirth). (1) The subject of rebirth is kamma(thout-system) and no one knows the origination of the rebirth. (2) The mental life span is determined when the kamma(thought-system) becomes rebirth. (3) The recycled kamma(thought-system) undergoes numerous changes driven by paṭiccasamuppāda(nibbana‘s idiosyncrasy of building paccaya) through the life span. (4) Such changed kamma(thought-system) will be lead again to the next life until perfect vimutti(experiencing nibbana).
Finally, let's think about a following proposition together! 2600 years ago, at three different areas on earth, by three different saints, same thing was yelled like the roaring of a lion. "Know about yourself(Socrates)!" "Stay on yourself(Gottama)!" "Practice for yourself(Confucius)!" These three people replicated from the same kamma(thought-system) with in different bodies and places, didn't it? Without the replication of kamma(thought-system), there is no way to explain by Buddhism the 7 billion of present population on earth.(fin)

[soogar571]

If the thought-system you are currently using has been handed over to you after countless samsara, what is your position between 'to make thanks' and 'to make a grudge' to the previous owners of the thought-system? In the case of to grumble, you should first consider before making a grudge that you will also be evaluated by the next person who will use the thought-system. Then, the intention of grumbling at the moment will immediately disappear, and it will turn into the stance that you will have to improve your thought-system even a little more and hand it over to someone in next life. Improving thought-system like this serves two ends because it is not only to help you right now, but also to be appreciated by someone in next life. Do you agree?

[Dhammanando]

Improving thought-system like this serves two ends because it is not only to help you right now, but also to be appreciated by someone in next life. Do you agree?

When engaged in reviewing the fact of being the owner and the heir of one’s kamma (for example in upekkhā-bhāvanā), it’s customary to regard the being one was in the past, and the being that one will become in the future, as being oneself, not another person:

But if resentment does not subside when he admonishes himself thus, then he should review the fact that he himself and the other [towards whom he has ill will] are owners of their deeds (kamma).

Herein, he should first review this in himself thus: “Now, what is the point of your getting angry with him? Will not this kamma of yours that has anger as its source lead to your own harm? For you are the owner of your deeds, heir of your deeds, having deeds as your parent, deeds as your kin, deeds as your refuge; you will become the heir of whatever deeds you do (see A. iii. 186). And this is not the kind of deed to bring you to full enlightenment, to undeclared enlightenment or to the disciple’s grade, or to any such position as the status of Brahmā or Sakka, or the throne of a Wheel-turning Monarch or a regional king, etc.; but rather this is the kind of deed to lead to your fall from the Dispensation, even to the status of the eaters of scraps, etc., and to the manifold suffering in the hells, and so on. By doing this you are like a man who wants to hit another and picks up a burning ember or excrement in his hand and so first burns himself or makes himself stink.”
(Visuddhimagga, Brahmavihāraniddesa)

“For you are the heir of your deeds.”

“And this is not the kind of deed to bring you to full enlightenment...”

[ryanM]

I really appreciate the Socratic method. To draw or lead out (lit. educate) knowledge already acquired in past lives through strategic questioning. The Buddha's recollection of past lives was integral for his supreme understanding of the Dhamma. That formal line I've drawn for myself regarding education begins to vanish.

It's a strange thing when people are taken aback by 'selfless' acts. They've seen someone lose/give something up, but they don't see the great immaterial gain a person generates through giving up/to unless they can investigate what's taking place. These are some things your post inspired me to write, soogar. Sorry if they seem to head in another direction than what you intended.

[soogar571]

Improving thought-system like this serves two ends because it is not only to help you right now, but also to be appreciated by someone in next life. Do you agree?

When engaged in reviewing the fact of being the owner and the heir of one’s kamma (for example in upekkhā-bhāvanā), it’s customary to regard the being one was in the past, and the being that one will become in the future, as being oneself, not another person:

According to the Visuddhimagga quoted, you are right and I fully agree with it. But in this 'reply', I tried to see from the standpoint of 'thought-system (including kamma)' instead of 'the owner' or 'the heir'. From this point of view, I had an unexpected new sense of responsibility instead of worrying being irresponsible. (Although this view may not correspond to sutta.)

[soogar571]

It's a strange thing when people are taken aback by 'selfless' acts. They've seen someone lose/give something up, but they don't see the great immaterial gain a person generates through giving up/to unless they can investigate what's taking place.

I think I should spread the teachings of Buddha as far as possible because it is necessary to increase the possibility for my thought-system to meet the teaching in unknown future.

SN 22.59 PTS: S iii 66 CDB i 901
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

303“Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ rūpaṃ— ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

Never forget that "anatta" does not mean just 'not self' but means 'this (5-kandha) is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself' ie using a triple entendre. One day when I was reciting this sutta, suddenly next question arose. If this is not mine, who is the owner? Is the owner probably the nibbana?

[freedom]

I think I should spread the teachings of Buddha as far as possible because it is necessary to increase the possibility for my thought-system to meet the teaching in unknown future.

SN 22.59 PTS: S iii 66 CDB i 901
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

303“Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ rūpaṃ— ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

Never forget that "anatta" does not mean just 'not self' but means 'this (5-kandha) is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself' ie using a triple entendre. One day when I was reciting this sutta, suddenly next question arose. If this is not mine, who is the owner? Is the owner probably the nibbana?

The question "who is the owner?" implies there is a self.

If I were you, I would be very careful in spreading as far as possible what I think "the true teachings of the Buddha" because that is just my own belief/understanding.

If my understanding is wrong, I will harm not only myself but also many other people. This is not without terrible consequences! This is why the Buddha was very skeptical of who can teach the Dhamma.

When we think we know, that is when we do not! When we think we do not know, that is when we start to know!

Just a word of caution! Wish the best to your noble effort. (Sorry for my bad english!)

[soogar571]

The question "who is the owner?" implies there is a self.

I found almost all the english translations are translating anatta sutta into not-self sutta like. I am worried whether there are people who only know anatta as not-self and then wrote it above. Again, anatta is not 'not-self' and even 'no-self'.

If I were you, I would be very careful in spreading as far as possible what I think "the true teachings of the Buddha" because that is just my own belief/understanding.

I have been posting my threads on this forum with the expectation that my misunderstandings in the light of Buddha 's teachings could be severly pointed out. I also expect a lot from you 'freedom'.

If my understanding is wrong, I will harm not only myself but also many other people. This is not without terrible consequences! This is why the Buddha was very skeptical of who can teach the Dhamma.

Is there anyone at this Dhammawheel site who considers my understanding of Buddha's teaching equals to Buddha's itself? Anyway, I will be more careful not to have someone like that.

When we think we know, that is when we do not! When we think we do not know, that is when we start to know!

Thank you very much for telling me the good words as above. I quote the Tao-te-ching chapter 71 in return.

To know that you do not know is best(知不知上). To not know of knowing is a disease(不知知病). Indeed, to be sick of the disease(夫唯病病), Is the way free of the disease(是以不病). Evolved individuals are free of the disease(聖人不病). Because they are sick of the disease(以其病病). This is the way to be free of disease(是以不病).

Just a word of caution! Wish the best to your noble effort.

I will keep it in mind. Have a nice weekend!

[freedom]

I found almost all the english translations are translating anatta sutta into not-self sutta like. I am worried whether there are people who only know anatta as not-self and then wrote it above. Again, anatta is not 'not-self' and even 'no-self'.

Anatta is a difficult concept to understand and explain. When one already threw out, cut off all that belong to or of/in the self. There is nothing that one can relate to it no matter that it is in the past, present or in the future!

If you never have a son, how can you talk about your son in the past, present or in the future?

[Nicolas]

Nibbana is not a being and does not do, build, or own anything.

[soogar571]

Anatta is a difficult concept to understand and explain. When one already threw out, cut off all that belong to or of/in the self. There is nothing that one can relate to it no matter that it is in the past, present or in the future!

According to your reply quoted, you seem to know 'anatta' as the state of which 'one already threw out, cut off all that belong to or of/in the self and then there is nothing that one can relate to it no matter that it is in the past, present or in the future!'. I If so, you have not read my post correctly. I would quote the corresponding part of my reply again.

Never forget that "anatta" does not mean just 'not self' but means 'this (5-kandha) is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself' ie using a triple entendre.

Although the 'Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59)' is expressed as if Buddha recorded the sermon that he had made to the five bhikkhus, this sutta was very carefully designed and distributed by Buddha in terms of the structure and contents. Therefore, not only the whole context of this sutta, but even one word, should not be arbitrarily translated. Once again, the meaning of 'anatta' is no more than 'this (5-kandha) is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself(a triple entendre)'.

[soogar571]

Nibbana is not a being and does not do, build, or own anything.

Hi Nicolas! Have you been fine so far? We can never reach nibbana by borrowing the power of our thoughts because nibbana is something that creates and manages our thoughts.

Ud 8.3 PTS: Ud 80 Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]

Fortunately, however, Buddhha has left the teaching of nibbana as in the sutta quoted above, so while depending on it, the next inference is possible. "(the born —) made by (the unborn —)." " (the unborn —) is the nibbana." Nicholas, do you think that there is a serious error in my reasoning?


Sorry i copied this reply under the thread 'Buddha's teaching from programmer's view' because i hope to meet you there with nibbana.

[freedom]

This is where I may misunderstood from you

If this is not mine, who is the owner? Is the owner probably the nibbana?

When you asked "If this is not mine, who is the owner?", you implied that "there is an owner that is a self". That's how I understood that question.

[soogar571]

This is where I may misunderstood from you

If this is not mine, who is the owner? Is the owner probably the nibbana?

When you asked "If this is not mine, who is the owner?", you implied that "there is an owner that is a self". That's how I understood that question.

As you can see, my sentences end with a question mark. I just said my experience happened three or four years ago. In the thread 'the Buddha's teaching from programmer's view', there is a overall overview of my current understandings about Buddha's teaching.

[Dhammanando]

Fortunately, however, Buddha has left the teaching of nibbana as in the sutta quoted above, so while depending on it, the next inference is possible. "(the born —) made by (the unborn —)." " (the unborn —) is the nibbana." Nicholas, do you think that there is a serious error in my reasoning?

I think there's a serious error in your reading. The Udāna passage states that the unborn provides the means of escape from the born. It doesn't say that the unborn makes the born. Still less does it say that the unborn "is something that creates and manages our thoughts." You seem to be turning nibbāna into something like the puggala of the Puggalavādins.