Do You Only Live Once? The Evidence for Rebirth
What happens after you die? That used to be just a religious question, but science is starting to weigh in. Sam Littlefair looks at the evidence that you lived before.
at Lion’s Roar website
Lion’s Roar describes itself as “BUDDHIST WISDOM for OUR TIME”
So, to what extent can one peruse cases examined here and conclude that there are thousand of cases on par with the one above?
I don’t know. But what would be of particular interest to me are those cases which actually succeeded in convincing the doubters like James Randi and Michael Shermer – skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive … -on-earth/ – to at least hold back on the criticisms we often encounter in the skeptic community.
Michael Shermer on Twitter: “My instant refutation of reincarnation: 6.9 billion people alive today, 100 billion people lived before: where did all those extra souls go?”
Well, it’s big universe, right?
And, again, I have to remind others that I want to believe in something – anything – able to convince me that death is not the equivalent of oblivion.
2,500 cases. That’s a lot. But reporting memories of past lives and providing the sort of evidence that would be very hard to dismiss is something else altogether.
For example, what physical injuries? If there are verified accounts where, say, a young man recalls a past life as a particular individual who had particular scars and tattoos and broken bones and afflictions that left physical marks on or in his body…and it turns out that this young man has the same exact accumulation of them himself [or acquires them], that would sure perk up my interest.
Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.
Mindfulness? One word: Nxivm.
Or, sure, two or more. Really, what does it matter what you call it when the whole point is to anchor the mind itself?
Or as Nietzsche [or someone like him] once suggested, “the opposite of a truth is not a lie, the opposite of a truth is a conviction.”
As long as you are convinced that what you are mindful of is something that is inherently, necessarily that which any spiritually enlightened human being is obligated to be mindful, calling it Buddhism is as good a word as any.
Or, sure, it might have little or nothing to do with spirituality at all. It might just be a practical and effective way in which to make the mind more productive, less stressed.
And, here, who could really find fault with it? If it allows you to make the most out of what you choose to be mindful of, the only possible objection might be if what you choose to become mindful involves behaviors that interfere with or even block the paths of those who choose to be mindful of something else.
On the other hand, the “for all practical purposes” path may not be enough for some. Instead they want to connect all the exercises and mental disciplines to something…bigger.
" Here is a piece of the superior wisdom of the East. The Yogin realizes that all the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and Devatas with which he has filled the heavens are Maya illusion just as the world itself is Maya. All this plurality is illusion." ~C. G. Jung, ETH Lecture XI, 3 Feb1939, Page 74.
Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.
Imagine then Eliot’s reaction to our postmodern world. The “broken rhythms and confused juxtapositions” embedded in pop culture, mindless consumption and the endless pursuit of our own 15 minutes of fame. Even here in a philosophy venue the Waste Land threatens the extinction of all that those like Eliot perhaps imagined the opposite of a Waste Land to be.
Imagine that poem.
Still, my own reaction to “remedies” from either the West or the East merely reconfigures the wasted land into countless personal, subjective reactions to what that even means. Let alone to what can or should be done about it.
And “peace of mind” here is seen by me only to be someone’s capacity to create, ironically enough, a subjective objectivism…an essential reality in their head which subsumes the maelstrom in what they are able to simply believe is true. About a soul, about religion, about God. And for most that is almost never challenged by someone like me. Instead, only in experiencing some truly traumatic calamity in their life might they find themselves questioning that belief. Yet, even here, what is the alternative to religion…East or West. Clearly, very, very few are likely to consider my own frame of mind.
Yes, I devoured Hesse back in “the Sixties”. I had lost my own Christian foundation and many of the arguments he posed about human interactions seemed to take me to some place that made the surface of things so clearly superficial. It was more or less a “spiritual” complement to the materialism I was devouring as a Marxist. And they did complement each other in a way that back then I was never able to quite grasp.
Still, OM?
Right, as though a sound could effectively enable me to counter a philosophy of life that was “sinking” further and further into moral nihilism. Into a feeling of being “fractured and fragmented” in regard to all things moral and political and spiritual.
Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.
Okay, Eastern philosophies and spiritual paths being “influential” is one thing, being any more relevant in regard to my own interest in religion another thing altogether. Those from the East present us us with a different way in which to grasp human interactions…given as well a different understanding of the “big picture”.
In the East, everything seems to be grappled with and apprehended more “holistically”, more oriented toward the community in sync with certain universal truths. In the West, things are more fragmented and oriented toward the individual. A world where science and technology is likely to be more instrumental in regard to relationships. And, of course, the role that consumption plays in a marketplace that revolves considerably more around “show me the money”. Even religion becomes just another manifestation of political economy in the West.
All I can do here is ask those who have thought through Schopenhauer’s moral philosophy by way of the Upanishads, to imagine how he might have reacted to the points that I raise in regard to moral nihilism. Also, Upanishads or not, Schopenhauer is still no less known today as the “philosopher of pessimism”. He might have seen compassion as the chief font for morality but that doesn’t make dasein, conflicting goods or political economy go away. Compassion for who in what set of circumstances?
Bring the word “compassion” into a discussion among the liberals and the conservatives here and see how far it gets you.
Unfortunately, an assessment such as this is ever and always up in the clouds of abstraction. Begins from within? And how is that not a manifestation of dasein out in a particular world understood in a particular way? As though “intuition” is not an existential contraption manifested subjunctively in and of itself.
Same with all that is “without”. Whatever we claim that to be we are still either able or not able to demonstrate to others that it is or is not the same for all of us.
On the other hand, who is kidding whom? Religion is still embraced – sometimes fanatically – by millions and millions around the globe.
And the reason is not difficult to discern. When it comes to acquiring a font on this side of the grave for establishing objective morality and a font on the other side of the grave for assuring immortality and salvation, what’s the alternative?
Are people going to flock to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer for “comfort and consolation” in regard to to that?
Buddhism merely puts a No God spin on the same results.
But: However remarkably close any philosopher gets to any religious denomination doesn’t appear to make my own objections go away. I merely note that any “spiritual” path found is better than having thought yourself into believing that human existence is essentially meaningless, only to topple over “in the end” in the obliteration of “I” for all the rest of eternity.
Gaining access to one’s “primordial being” here is, to me, no less didactic than those on this thread – ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195805 – attempting to gain access to an “omnipotent being”
And, sure, to the extent that particular Buddhists seek to “forget the entire world” by huddling together in “sanghas” and focusing on the embodiment of dhamma, they can act out their spiritual quest in a way that, for most of the rest of us, isn’t a practical option.
On the other hand, like all the rest of us, they need access to food, water, clothing, shelter and all that actually sustains their existence from day to day. Bills to be paid to provide that things. Bills paid as with all other religions by the “faithful”.
On the other hand, how could it not be obscure as soon as you make an attempt to reconfigure it from in a “world of words” intellectual contraption to an actual entity to be described given the interactions of those entities we know as “human beings”.
What “inner wisdom” in regard to what concrete situation? And why not be preoccupied – scientifically, phenomenologically, technologically – with what actually is objective knowledge embedded in the either/or world. That’s what has brought about – for better or worse – out modern industrial world.
Note for example instances of “inner wisdom” and “the power of being” in regard to smart phones or personal computers or the internet. What of the 'primordial being" being then?
Instead, it sounds more like the sort of stuff that fixed jacob and his ilk here would focus in on to prop up their own “metaphysical” “theories of everything”.
Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.
Too bad they are no longer around to address the points that I raise about religion [East or West] here. Still, if there are any proponents of the ideas these folks embraced please feel free to discuss them with me given the arguments I subscribe to “here and now”.
The part where “spirituality” meets the reasoning mind? And the “occult”? And the “cosmos” itself?
As for my main interest in religion…connecting the dots existentially between spiritual values and morality? Not much:
Theosophy does not express any formal ethical teaching, a situation that generated ambiguity. However, it has expressed and promoted certain values, such as brotherhood and social improvement.
Just vague enough to cover everything. Brotherhood in regard to what? Social improvement…when and where and how and why? Theosophy and…vaccinations? Abortion? Human sexuality?
Or, again, in regard to the points I raise about Buddhism has anything really changed at all? How could we derive our happiness and enlightenment other than through our interactions with others? The alternative would be to isolate yourself from “society” and derive your sense of self solely through interacting with nature or alone on the spiritual path itself.
In other words, how does thinking, like this…“You are all depending for your spirituality on someone else, for your happiness on someone else, for your enlightenment on someone else”…not manage in turn to be just vague enough to encompass everything.
And it certainly would “for all practical purposes” not have much relevance in regard to, say, the covid-19 vaccination wars. More like something someone would embody in a community that consisted solely of other likeminded religious adherents.
Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.
There is also the irony built into our increasingly secular post-modern world. Given a world in which Communism has been on the wane since the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. Religion as a whole often has to compete with the new Gods: pop culture, mass consumption and the worship of all things celebrity. The quest for our 15 minutes of fame. And in the sense that there are so many more outlets in which to achieve it. Call this the Youtube Syndrome. So many, many more can become “famous”. Also, 15 minutes because our attention spans shrink year in and year out. Given this where on earth does a serious religious commitment fit in at all.
And yet, paradoxically, for some, the more fractured and fragmented our “lifestyle” world becomes, the greater the longing for one or another “spiritual path” to anchor all the pieces to. And here over the decades the religions of the East wax and wane in our part of the world.
Though clearly to the extent that secular, ideological regimes are still around – brandishing doctrinaire narratives that become for all practical purposes religions in and of themselves – the faithful can be pared down considerably.
Is there anything even remotely resembling a common path that all Buddhists agree on in regard to any number issues that religions in general concern themselves with. Like, for instance “morality here and now and immortality there and then”?
Instead there are various ethnic and national traditions which may or not overlap with, say, the 14th Dalai Lama.
It all seems to become a kind of cafeteria smorgasbord, where everyone gets to pick out the practices that cause them the least disruption in their lives.
Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.
In other words, had there been no Communist Revolution and no growing internationalism, the original Theravada and not the later Mahayana tradition of Buddhism might have entered the West.
But that doesn’t change my own reaction to Buddhism above. Whatever the “school of thought” on whatever “the spiritual path”, those on it either will or will not take it to the arguments I make in regard to God and religion: how do they connect the dots existentially between morality/enlightenment/karma on this side of the grave and immortality/salvation/nirvana on the other side of of it.
Instead, based on my own experiences with religionists, including many on this thread, that is precisely the direction they refuse to pursue.
And here is yet another “historical” variable:
Same thing:
This “ubiquitous Zen”: given what particular context relating to what particular narrative/discipline bridging human behaviors here and now and the fate of “I” there and then. Go there, I tell them, or merely sustain your comfort and consolation in a “world of words”. In meditation. In all of the earthly benefits of a more disciplined mind.
And I would note my own speculations in regard to all of this with those who embrace the thinking of Gary Synder and John Cage…or Karen Horney and Erich Fromm. In other words, art and/or psychoanalysis given whatever manner one feels “shipwrecked”.
What particular “beacon” in bridging the gap between morality and immortality?
Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.
Formidable.
In other words, for whatever reasons rooted in the historical trek of Buddhism to the West, he has come out on top. Here and now. As, say, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi once was back in the Sixties when the four mop tops paid him a visit. He was all the “spiritual rage” back then.
So, the Dalai Lama has come to particular conclusions about Buddha that revolve around the my own interest in religion. Or around your interest in religion. But my interest in religion focuses almost entirely on the existential relationships between morality and immortality. And around the extent to which what the Dalai Lama believes, he is able to demonstrate as in fact a rational belief.
Anyone here a greater admirer of him? Let’s discuss his frame of mind.
As though compassion, like all other mental, emotional and psychological “states of mind” doesn’t need a context in order to explore it more fully. After all, one can feel compassion [or empathy] for anyone in any set of circumstances. One can feel compassion for a pregnant woman choosing an abortion or for the unborn baby about to be shredded. One can feel compassion for a fascist or for a Communist.
We can start a thread that examines attempts to pin down who one ought to feel compassion for and who does not deserve it.
As for the Bodhisattva, this sounds [to me] like something that ecmandu is ever and always coming back to. One cannot be free of all pain and suffering [and “saved”] until everyone is free of all pain and suffering.
Okay, but what does that have to do with actual human reality?
Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.
Whether “flirted” with in the “moment of sudden illumination”, or sustained over the long haul, compassion remains largely an intellectual contraption until those who choose to embody it describe the situation in which they feel that compassion is warranted. Compassion for whom in what situation construed from what set of moral and political prejudices. Compassion for the woman choosing an abortion or compassion for the shredded baby? Compassion for your fellow Nazi storm troopers or compassion for your fellow Communist comrades? Compassion for men and women of all colors or compassion for the white race only?
Only in regard to Buddhism and other religious paths this compassion is somehow connected in turn to the fate of “I” beyond the grave. Making one’s understanding of it all the more fundamental.
Okay, let’s try this…
For those here who think they understand what the author is getting at in regard to the Dalai Lama’s emphasis on “transformation and training”, cite examples from your own life in order to flesh out the meaning here. What set of circumstances triggered what behaviors on your part that you construed to be examples of this?
And how on earth might his understanding of “transformation and training” be related to my own interest in them: connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then. How do you connect the dots here?
Yo, Gib. Haven’t heard from you in a while. And this is your thread. Give it a go.
Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.
What I would ask him of course is this: In regard to “morality here and now and immortality there and then”, where does science end and philosophy begin.
And then in regard to what he argues here, where does that end and Buddhism begin?
Given a particular context of his own choosing.
Right, like here there is not a profound distinction to be made between engineering material, scientific, phenomenological relationships in the either/or world, and guiding spiritual relationships in regard to the discussion I would prefer to sustain with him. What empirical evidence enables him to establish his own leaps of faith to enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana?
So, is there anyone here [or anyone that anyone here knows] who can note particular examples of how science has failed to demonstrate claims of his about Buddhism? Has anyone in the scientific community taken him up on this?
What exactly is he talking about here? What sets of circumstances? And do these situations focus on my own reservations regarding this particular No God religious path?
Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.
Here I am less “confrontational” in regard Buddhism. To the extent that meditation and other practices/disciplines used by those who embrace Buddhism do in fact have a constructive, positive, therapeutic effect/impact in/on a person’s life, more power to them. I have not myself attempted to engage them but for those who suggest that this is to my own disadvantage, I have no rebuttal. Let alone an effective rebuttal.
No, it is far more in regard to “changes” relating to “morality here and now, immortality there and then”, that attracts me to discussions of religion. In other words, enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana with respect to the manner in which I examine “conflicting goods” and “the abyss” given the components of my own philosophy — identity, value judgments and political economy. That’s the exchange I am drawn to.
Thus, this part…
…is something that I would encourage anyone to pursue if “for all practical purposes” it allows them to make useful, productive, beneficial changes in their mental and emotional outlook on life.
The evidence certainly seems to confirm some rather extraordinary states of mind that can be achieved when one is more focused in on training the mind to go in a more disciplined direction. Reacting to the world based on whatever the unschooled mind misses.
I’m all for the practice of Buddhism in that regard.
But, again, that’s not the “regard” that is of most interest to me.
In the first instance, Buddhism was established by Siddhartha Gautama, someone who had very little experience of life. He was a rich, pampered young man who, when he ran away from home, almost immediately attached himself to ascetics. After only a few years, sitting under a banyan tree one day, he experienced some sort of epiphany or “enlightenment”. I can’t remember all the details but one outcome was a decision to not live life at the extremes of either wealth or denial (asceticism) but to chose the middle way. (Again, I have forgotten much of Buddhist nomenclature.) When under the banyan tree meditating, he saw visions. This is hardly surprising. Living as an ascetic, his mind and body had been put through extremes of stress, he was near to death. Under such circumstances anyone is liable to experience psychosis i.e. “visions” (many Christian saints did too). Gautama’s story should, of itself, make one suspicious of his claims. For example, he had never lived moderately, had never experienced moderation, so how then, at the age of around 32, had he managed to acquire the wisdom that his insight to live moderately would require?
More fundamentally, however, all religions are based on belief, not Truth. None of the religions know what a human being is, nor what a mind is. Neither, for that matter, does philosophy or science. Therefore on what basis can the Buddhist way be said to be the way we should live?
One of the main aspects of Buddhism is meditation. One meditates to quieten the mind and eventually to attain enlightenment. This is not dealing with life. This practice is running away from life. It is escapism. Instead of dealing with the horrors of life, Buddhism preaches burying one’s head in the sand. Its practices ensure death, the ultimate escape. (I used meditation as relaxation therapy. It does not teach one how to deal with life. The way to deal with life is to face up to it and change oneself. One changes oneself by letting go of one’s past and being, as it were, reborn. this is a long and arduous process, but it works.)
Buddha Travels West
Peter Abbs follows Buddhism’s path towards becoming a Western humanism.
Yes, that’s how it works. You are a Buddhist given particular historical, cultural and circumstantial contexts. Then that shifts. You have new experiences in a community that in some respects is different from the one you left. What else is there but to continue on as the Buddhist you once were or, instead, to configure your beliefs and practices in order to accommodate the new situations that you encounter.
From my own perspective, however, that is less important than the fact that as “the old Buddhist” or the “new Buddhist”, you are still confronted with connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality there and then. Thus, from my own vantage point as a moral nihilist, all religious paths – old or new, orthodox or revisionist – are interchangeable.
Here the only alternative is to become part of a religious community that makes every effort to distance itself from the larger “society”. For Buddhists, the Sangha. Ethics can more readily revolve around that which the Buddha himself prescribed. Or, rather, in interpreting that which the Buddha himself prescribed.
All I can note here again is how ludicrous this seems to me given what is at stake for “I” on the other side of the grave. Secular ethics? Spiritual growth? Okay, are there not countless moral narratives – secular and spiritual – swirling around any number of conflicting goods that bring about all those ominous headlines in the media day after day after day?
After all, clearly, one way or another, with immortality and salvation on the line, there has to be a distinction made between behaviors that do get you over to the other side as you want the other side to be and behaviors that don’t.
Buddhism just muddles it all the more by taking God and Judgment Day out of the picture.
I was with you up until this point. And my appreciation doesn’t go unmentioned. It’s a breath of fresh air to hear that the Buddha’s images might have been fasting induced–anything that brings the mystical back down to earth is appreciated. But then you said:
And I sensed some deep resentments about Buddhism–perhaps the kind that I feel, perhaps not–but lets try to be honest about Buddhism. I agree with what you say when it comes to monastic Buddhism–you know, hiding yourself away from society and being among people who all agree with you and have the same goal, and want to cooperate with each other to make the journey harmonious–but this is like a soldier boasting about his service even though he’s never seen any action–on this, I am in total agreement with you.
But these aren’t the only Buddhists. I’ve heard from many, and seen many, who practice meditation and Buddhism in general, to do things like run a business, heal their relationships with people, perfect their fighting skills in some martial art (this is how martial arts in general began–the ideas of bringing the focus, tranquility, and discipline of mind to the battle field in order to become a better soldier). So I don’t think your charge can be leveled against all Buddhists, but certainly those who hide away from hardship in order to attain what Buddhists call “enlightenment” (whatever that means).
