Reincarnation

[sabaijai]

I also suspect grasping to the notion of reincarnation may anchor me to my ego, something which could hinder letting go of the self in order to achieve a state of no self.

Bingo ...

[eggomaniac]

I also suspect grasping to the notion of reincarnation may anchor me to my ego, something which could hinder letting go of the self in order to achieve a state of no self.

Bingo ...

There's lots of anchors out there, then. A google of 'Buddha's past lives' produces 771,000 'hits'.

There are books written on the subject.

This one article seems to me to indicate Buddha taught reincarnation AND rebirth. It's reincarnation until breaking free from samsara.

>>>

Buddha: Proof of Reincarnation

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-buddha.htm

The Buddha taught that the self (or soul) was an illusion. But what many fail to realize is that until the illusion is seen for what it is, the cycle of birth and death continues. Just because the soul is an illusion doesn't mean there are not rebirths and deaths. Contrary, it is the failure to see the past the illusion of self that traps one in samsara (the cycle of births and death). Until one breaks free from samsara there continues to be the illusion of a soul. It may sound like I'm splitting hairs but it is important to understand the subtleties of Buddha's teachings. Even Buddha remembered his past lives back when he was still under the illusion of self. So what does Buddha's life tell us about reincarnation, the soul and past lives? Buddha was able to recount stories of his past lives. He achieved retro-cognitive powers. Here is one of his past life stories. and so on...

[sleepyjohn]

I cannot know if there is such a thing as nirvanna until I personally experience it.

Not to be picky.....

Your "experience" would not be a direct (therefore reliable) experience as in paramattha dhamma, but more an overall impression which includes conceptualisations. As conceptualisations aren't reliable, this may also tell us something about the non-path to nirvana.

[eggomaniac]

I found out the one I am most intersted in Mahayan, is divided into the East Asian branch and the Tibetan branch. As the Tibetans believe in reincrnation and are of the same sect as East Asian, Mahayanism, I going to deduct that Thai Buddhist Mayhayan Buddhism probably does too.

As I just found out their main territory was in the South, Surat Thani to Nakhon Si Thammarat, the hairs stood up the back of my neck. This is where my main connection with Thailand is and where my interest began.

Who knows, Maybe I was a Mayahan Buddhist monk in my last life? I will have to find out if there was any highly controversial and outspoken monk, with outlandish theories, who passed in 1949, with enough 'credits' to be born in Canada, instead of Thailand.

next thread, is humor allowed in Buddhism?

Hi EM.

I was just interested in your preference to Mahayan Buddhism.

Is this partially due to Mahayan's leaning towards reincarnation over rebirth?

Up until a year or two I new nothing of rebirth & due to my aversion of eternal death l liked the idea of reincarnation.

I now feel that, in terms of my current conditioned & impermanent state, reincarnation is no different to permanent death as I have no consciousness of past lives.

I also suspect grasping to the notion of reincarnation may anchor me to my ego, something which could hinder letting go of the self in order to achieve a state of no self.

hmm I would nearly have to bare my soul to answer that. well I have frequented nud_e beaches, but public spiritual openess? hmm what the hey! Dante did it, why not me?

[first I know for a fact that God, Vishnu, Shiva, Lucifer, Thor, Zeus exist, but that is another whole thread. Second, in Buddhism Christianity and most other 'religions' we are depicted as slum dwellers at best, dungeon prisoners, more like it. I can't quote Buddhists scripture, however all that big wheel stuff turning on a cycle of ignorance and death can be easily seen in couple of lines of the Lord's prayer.

'Who art in heaven' so, like, where does that leave us? what is the opposite of heaven?

Then again, 'Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven' hmm wouldn't that be nice? point is what will is being done on earth, if not Gods?

Now if you want to talk all nice and poetic, it sure sounds pretty, but the idiots' guide to scripture would point out we are walking &lt;deleted&gt; that were given, or grabbed, a brain to muddle with. <North American aboriginals had more beautiful relations with Taiwo the Creator and led more saintly existences, but that is another Thread too>]

------------------

So here goes, Before I first went to Thaland I had developed a concept that purpose of mankind was to reconcile God and Lucifer to buddies and pals again. weird huh?

Then in Nahkon Si Thammarat I was 'drawn' to the whole Shiva and Vishnu thing.

I read an Article, which all my Googling has not been able to find again, though I think it was written by a Thai professor, that told the story of Vishnu and Shiva arguing about who was better, where have I heard that before I was thinking? Oh yea! God and the archangel Lucifer In this story, Brahma told one of them to find his/her head, Shiva I think, and the other, in that case Vishnu, to find the feet and off they went. Silly me, at the time I thought that WAS official Hindu story. lol Since then I have learned their are Shivans who recognise Vishnu as part Shiva and vice versa and about 100 different sects and stories of who and what Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are and are not.

Okay, the article also claimed there was a sect/school, a very small and obscure sect, that believed Shiva and Vishnu, somewhere along the way, came to their senses, stopped being so bratty about who was better, kisssed and made up and are all buddy, buddy again. it happened on Valentines' day, joking

Now if you have followed my story, can you guess who I thought Vishnu and Shiva were if translated? BINGO

I guess I really should have nailed down who and where this Shiva and Vishnu are now buddies sect was and ran off and joined up, because it fit in my 'belief' system.

I mean it makes perfect sense that the whole human condition and history is based on two Gods nyahh nyahhing each other and we are Them arguing with each other. Freud said sex was the main driver, Adler said it was social acceptance, Jung nailed it as the Id, and then lesbrausanism was postulated, however when you think about it the base of all humans inercations is 'who is better?' If you will only let go of your self and recognise I am better than you, you will then understand this important concept. chuckle

Any example will do hmm... Who has a bigger house. who is 'better' Thaksin or Sonhdi? Who has understands Buddha's teachings better. The root foundation of our existence, as reported in the Bible and Hindu teachings is the result of a petty disagreement between two great Gods. [That is what it says]

Why can we NOT tell Them to grow up?

I mean Christ will be coming back to Earth soon, no doubt, but can we NOT pull him aside and have word? Like, really, why do you have to build that temple and kill that animal?

We actually want you let that heiffer live, okay with you buddy? Why don't Lucifer and you create another Universe and go have childish feud there, or better yet set a good example for us poor humans?

----

So getting back to question, if I can, about that time, since my1rst and 2nd visit to Thailand, I started having 'thoughts' about a past life in Thailand. All of my life up to then, I thought of reincarnation as bunk., so that was mostly pushed away, but things kept happening. I still cannot, would not, say I was monk in Thailand in my past life, though that is thought which knocks on the door. I also, 'thought' 'think' it was in the NST area.

So this Mahayan Buddism has only been learned by me in the past few days. The idea I knew of its teachings and was drawn to it, no. I had the ideas, and have now found out they correlate.

Now it's not like it's knocking on the door anymore, NOW they are ringing the door bell!

Before, arrows flew through my mind about what monks might have died in 1948, in NST, especially if one was murdered. Now, I am wishing I could vital stastics of the era.

If it turns out there was a highly controversial, outspoken monk, with 'radical' ideas, though correct ones, of course, who passed on in late 1948, well I would then really have to wonder about what have I been thinking?

That would mean a change of my whole being, as I would, more than likely, then believe in reincarnation.

[eggomaniac]

I cannot know if there is such a thing as nirvanna until I personally experience it.

Not to be picky.....

Your "experience" would not be a direct (therefore reliable) experience as in paramattha dhamma, but more an overall impression which includes conceptualisations. As conceptualisations aren't reliable, this may also tell us something about the non-path to nirvana.

Could you put that in an analogy, pullease.

I get a kick out out of you. Why don't you just come out and say it, exist is a practical joke, huh?

[rockyysdt]

Gee Eggo.

I don't know what to say, other than to say that we must be wary of our beliefs.

Some have written that our most impressionable age is birth to six years of age.

Influences from those around us, parents & carers, can have huge impacts on our later lives.

Experiences during our impressionable age can reside in our subconscious & color our decisions, thoughts & feelings & fashion our beliefs. As we were very young at the time we have no recollection of their source or that they inhabit our psyche.

For example If you were raised by my parents your current leanings, beliefs & goals might be totally different.

Do you practice much?

The beauty of your beliefs is that they've indirectly brought you close to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

The Buddha's Dhamma.

My aim is that through practice, I can observe my flaws which I have picked up over the years, & come to recognize them for what they are. I'm learning that my beliefs not only pander to my ego but were never mine to begin with.

My time on earth is rapidly coming to a close & I no longer have a hunger for consumerism.

My Yamaha FZ1 sits in the garage collecting dust, not having been ridden for 2 years.

Apart from basic security, food, access to medicine, freedom to travel, and independence l no longer have need for wealth.

I want to take up Buddha's recommendation.

Practice & find out for myself.

Anything else is clinging to the ego.

Unless I become selfless & acutely mindful, I don't think knowledge of my past lives, if there were any, is helpful.

I only hope I'm strong enough to overcome my negative self talk & continue my daily practice.

What are your thoughts?

[camerata]

Second, in Buddhism Christianity and most other 'religions' we are depicted as slum dwellers at best, dungeon prisoners, more like it. I can't quote Buddhists scripture,

Exactly. And unless you can, it's just an unsubstantiated opinion that doesn't correspond with what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that everyone - rich or poor - are in the same situation: what they think is happiness is transient and illusory. He offered a way out for everyone in this life, using their own effort and their own mind, nothing more. This is not at all like the situation of a dungeon prisoner, who either hasn't a way out or the way out depends on other people.

[eggomaniac]

Second, in Buddhism Christianity and most other 'religions' we are depicted as slum dwellers at best, dungeon prisoners, more like it. I can't quote Buddhists scripture,

Exactly. And unless you can, it's just an unsubstantiated opinion that doesn't correspond with what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that everyone - rich or poor - are in the same situation: what they think is happiness is transient and illusory. He offered a way out for everyone in this life, using their own effort and their own mind, nothing more. This is not at all like the situation of a dungeon prisoner, who either hasn't a way out or the way out depends on other people.

I never said the dungeon dwellers could never get out.

Okay, I can quote you, though, you say "Buddha offers a way out". Can we stick to a black and white statement and not rush back to 'knowledge is an illusion' and stuff like that? Remember I'm NOT disagreeing Buddha or Christ might provide a 'way out', I'm saying that they both agree there is a NEED for 'a way out'. out of what?

So there is 'a way out'? I am certain you, and Buddha, are not offering 'a way out' of paradise, right? Does converse logic work? Will you please think, or not think, about this?

If it's not a dungeon you will get out of, is it a cage? Or is it not get out, in and out is only ego?

Think about it THIS way. Not everyone will find or obtain this ticket to 'get out.' of 'what do you call it?' Just provide the definition of where they end up. We know it's NOT heaven or nirvana. Do you call it pretty piece of pie?

I have an amazing picture book put out by the Tamagai [sp] Buddhist monks. It shows the most beautiful pictures of jewellery clothing and scenes of gardens of paradise.

The last 1/3 of this Buddhist book shows the most twisted and horrific pictures of dismemberment and torture in hel_l. The pictures make a 'dungeon' look like upper class.

If you are saying that Buddhism and Christianity, both, do NOT teach that the result of not finding 'the way out' is not very pretty, then you are. hmmm .. incorrect.

ISBN 974 93349 4 9

The only internet information I could find on this book were Thai sites that seemed talk about how Miss Universe wore jewelery designs from this book. I don't know, I don't speak Thai.

If you can get a copy of this book, you will see my description our condition, according to Buddhism is very hellish.

----

If you can seperate yourself from ego, why is separation from semantics so hard?

The point I am making is if somone is ugly, it 'nicer' to say they are not pretty. They are still ugly. All I'm saying, as an analogy, it's interesting, to me, that 'both' Buddhism and Christianity say the human condition is not pretty, it's ugly.

They both offer beauty make overs, analogically speaking.

Edited March 14, 2010 by eggomaniac

[khaowong1]

To the original question..... Theravada Buddhism (of which there is only one sect in Thailand...the two you are thinking of are only a matter for monks, not laypeople) believes in the basic tenets of rebirth and karma.

These are intertwined and inseperable...you cannot believe in one without the other....and to call oneself a Buddhist and also claim you don't believe in either, means that one is simply fooling oneself.

As has been said the Hindu and Brahmin religions believe in reincarnation..... whereas Buddhism believes in rebirth..... it sounds like just a play on words but isn't.

Many people misunderstand the no-self, non-self thing and believe that it means there is no self at all. What it actually means is that there is no permanent unchanging self (like a soul). The body is of course subject to the law of impermanence and is constantly changing every second. The essential us.... the spirit if you like...is also changing every second....learning new lessons, getting new experiences, creating new karma. Rebirth in different existences and realms is caused by karma....we are different in each existence just as we are different now from when we were younger.

BUT...although each existence is different and we are changing constantly...there is a subtle connection...a subtle continuum which connects all our existences together.

Otherwise we couldn't talk about past lives...or future suffering/pleasure caused by accumulated negative/positive karma.....

The candle anology is usually expressed as if there is a long line of candles stretching into the distance..... some candles are fat, some thin, some yellow, white, black, scented with incense, etc. ..all are different (like our bodies in each existence)... the flame lighting the present candle is not the same flame as existed before and which lit the past candles...but there is a subtle connection....without past candles being lit the flame wouldn't continue from each successive candle to arrive at the present one....without the present one the future candles will not get lit (life).

Reaching nirvana we have stopped producing any more karma so there will be no more candles in the line ..and the flame extinguishes.

This does NOT mean that nirvana means the end of existence..... Buddhas and Arahants continue to exist...but their manner of existence is incomprehensible to us who have not got there too.

Hey Fred, this is about as good a description and explanation I've read.. Reincarnation and Rebirth is very difficult to explain.

[eggomaniac]

He offered a way out for everyone in this life, using their own effort and their own mind, nothing more.

This is a very important statement I would like to key on, maybe a new Topic?

Please, show the quotes where He said in one life.

One of the links I put in above, shows quotes whereby Buddha, Himself, took 100's of reincarnations to get to the 'builders of the last house'.

It's amazing to think that dumb little me can do better than Buddha and do it one life.

I'm not being facetious. Is it that Buddha supplied the tools whereby followers would not have to take the longer journey he took? < This would make, I know it's ego, logical sense.

hmmm .. maybe the intellect, the ego is our first set of keys 'to get out' of the hmmm place, aha don't say dungeon.. Maybe? the ego is not so disdainful after all, but an ignition point. Maybe the real Enlightened are not so disdainful of intellect, only those who have made it 2 or 3 steps?

If you can inform where Buddha said the 'escape' can occur in one life that would be most valuable information. Again, maybe he supplied, previously unavailable tools, that would make sense. [similar to I am the Way the Light kind of quotes]

-----------

This is my first, ever, intel that Hindu and/or Buddhism is a 'one life' path. This, to me, would a blooming Revelation, as all previous thinking was about several reincarnations; then recently several rebirths, not rebirths.

Though, of course you are allowed to have one, I have got my hopes up to my knees you are NOT just expressing and opinion. I really DO hope this will be confirmed as Buddhist teaching. Wasn't I misinformed to never have know this!?

[fabianfred]

The difference is that...an Arahant got there by following a Buddhas teaching of the Dhamma. The Dhamma is not too profound to understand....but it is too profound for any being except a Buddha to realise by themselves. That is why a Buddha has perfected himself over countless billions of aeons as a Boddhisatva.

Having met the Dhamma it is possible for us to reach nirvana in a single lifetime...but extremely difficult. Far better to aim for stream-entry...a much more attainable goal....but still not easy though.

[rockyysdt]

I never said the dungeon dwellers could never get out.

Okay, I can quote you, though, you say "Buddha offers a way out". Can we stick to a black and white statement and not rush back to 'knowledge is an illusion' and stuff like that? Remember I'm NOT disagreeing Buddha or Christ might provide a 'way out', I'm saying that they both agree there is a NEED for 'a way out'. out of what?

So there is 'a way out'? I am certain you, and Buddha, are not offering 'a way out' of paradise, right? Does converse logic work? Will you please think, or not think, about this?

If it's not a dungeon you will get out of, is it a cage? Or is it not get out, in and out is only ego?

A way out of the cycle of rebirth.

The Buddha said that life brings pain & suffering.

If you look around the world even today, hundreds of thousands die in horrible circumstances in earthquakes, tsunamis, terrorism, war, aids epidemics, famine, political oppression etc. This is at the global level. Look down to the individual level. Many suffer terribly at the loss of their close ones, the long suffering some must endure before death comes.

If you enquire at the individual level there is great suffering occuring at every moment of the day.

Here is a global indicator of suffering occuring on our planet.

http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php

Those of us lucky enough to live a middle class life in a modern western environment may have been sheltered by such suffering to date, but if you take into account that the cycle of rebirth might approach infinity your time may come.

Buddha offers an escape from the cycle of rebirth & hence from suffering.

Think about it THIS way. Not everyone will find or obtain this ticket to 'get out.' of 'what do you call it?' Just provide the definition of where they end up. We know it's NOT heaven or nirvana. Do you call it pretty piece of pie?

I have an amazing picture book put out by the Tamagai [sp] Buddhist monks. It shows the most beautiful pictures of jewellery clothing and scenes of gardens of paradise.

The last 1/3 of this Buddhist book shows the most twisted and horrific pictures of dismemberment and torture in hel_l. The pictures make a 'dungeon' look like upper class.

If you are saying that Buddhism and Christianity, both, do NOT teach that the result of not finding 'the way out' is not very pretty, then you are. hmmm .. incorrect.

ISBN 974 93349 4 9

The only internet information I could find on this book were Thai sites that seemed talk about how Miss Universe wore jewelery designs from this book. I don't know, I don't speak Thai.

If you can get a copy of this book, you will see my description our condition, according to Buddhism is very hellish.

I haven't read the book but in our world there are many authors.

When studying Buddhism one should take care to read authoritative works which reflect what the Buddha taught & avoid distortions of his teachings.

The Pali Cannon is a good reference.

If you can seperate yourself from ego, why is separation from semantics so hard?

The point I am making is if somone is ugly, it 'nicer' to say they are not pretty. They are still ugly. All I'm saying, as an analogy, it's interesting, to me, that 'both' Buddhism and Christianity say the human condition is not pretty, it's ugly.

They both offer beauty make overs, analogically speaking.

I wouldn't say we are ugly, just asleep.

We are not aware of the truth which can only be learned through actual experience.

Edited March 14, 2010 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

All I'm saying, as an analogy, it's interesting, to me, that 'both' Buddhism and Christianity say the human condition is not pretty, it's ugly.

They both offer beauty make overs, analogically speaking.

There's a big difference. Christianity offers a way out suffering after you're dead, Buddhism offers it while you're alive.

Getting back on topic, "reincarnation" is defined as "the belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form. Mainstream Christianity doesn't offer this, so it's pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. The confusion some people have with Buddhism is that something can reappear on earth in another body, but it isn't a soul. And it also can reappear in other realms in non-material forms.

[camerata]

He offered a way out for everyone in this life, using their own effort and their own mind, nothing more.

This is a very important statement I would like to key on, maybe a new Topic?

Please, show the quotes where He said in one life.

I didn't say one life, I said "this life" - as opposed to a future life. This is a major difference with other religions that offer some kind of salvation only after death.

[dutchguest]

With the danger that I might give the impression of a monomanic one-track mind I want to direct the attention again towards Osho.

But if somebody understands certain things clearly better only a fool will not try to learn something (I am only talking about myself here).

So Osho makes the concepts of rebirth and reΐncarnation a little bit more clear to me up to the point where I might be beginning to believe in them.

He says a.o. that you can only understand if you can transcend the Aristotelian logic and pre-Einstein physics, in other words the ordinary functioning mind, and begin to understand quantum-mechanics and dialectical logic. This understanding is not possible trough rationalising but only through meditation. So he calls Buddha the first quantum scientist 2500 years before Heisenberg c.s.

You can find his lecture in the book:

The Discipline of Transcendence, Vol 1

Chapter #10

Which can be found on this website:

http://www.oshoworld.com/

A few cuttings from it:

Buddha says when a person dies, his whole life's accumulated desires, his whole life's

accumulated memories, his whole life's sanskaras, karmas, jump like energy waves into a

new womb. It is a jump. The exact word is in physics: they call it 'quantum leap' -- 'a leap

of pure energy without any substance in it'.

Buddha is the first quantum physicist. Einstein followed him after twenty-five centuries,

but they both speak the same language. And I still say that Buddha is scientific. His

language is of modern physics; he came twenty-five centuries before his time.

When a person dies, the body disappears, the material part disappears, but the immaterial

part, the mind part, is a vibration. That vibration is released, broadcast. Now, wherever a

right womb is ready for this vibe, it will enter into the womb.

There is no self going, there is nobody going, there is no ego going. There is no need for

anything substantial to go, it is just a push of energy. The emphasis is that it is again the

same bag of the ego jumping. One house has become unlivable, one body is no more

possible to live with. The old desire, the lust for life -- the Buddha's term is tanha, lust for

life -- is alive, burning. That very desire takes a jump.

Now, listen to modern physics. They say there is no matter. You see this very substantial

wall behind me? You cannot pass through it; if you try you will be hurt. But modern

physics says it is nothing, nothing substantial. It is simply pure energy moving with such

tremendous spped that the very movement creates the falseness, the illusion, the

appearance of substance.

…..

Language creates the difficulty.

…..

Buddhism is the first religion which brought this message to the world -- that your

religions, your philosophies, are more grounded in your linguistic patterns than in

anything else. And if you can understand your language better, you will be able to

understand your inner processes better. He was the first linguist, and his insight is

tremendously meaningful.

[eggomaniac]

He offered a way out for everyone in this life, using their own effort and their own mind, nothing more.

This is a very important statement I would like to key on, maybe a new Topic?

Please, show the quotes where He said in one life.

I didn't say one life, I said "this life" - as opposed to a future life. This is a major difference with other religions that offer some kind of salvation only after death.

Okay, you are a moderator and all, however I hope I can speak my mind freely. How could I have known when you said 'this life', you did not mean this one life?

I won't even try to guess what 'this life' meant.or mayb e I will, this [past 100 lives] life? this [platitudinal] not life? "this life and other religions it is only after death"

maybe logic is an anchor of the ego, but what does that make bad logic?

The link I posted above showed quotes from Buddha as proof Buddhims teaches reincarnation and Buddha, Himself, remembered past lives.

This Thread is minor comapred to thousands of Google hits on the question of reincarnation, whether it is a Buddhist precept and all and the definitions of rebirth.

If you could define, then, what you meant by 'this life' and, then, show where it says that would be in the spirit of helping. Of course, you don't have to.

On the statement of 'salvation only after death', it's innacurate to state that about some religions. I know Catholics teach that sainthood can be attained in 'this one life'. They even have canonized some, Thomas Aquinas [Mother Theresa?] Also, the BAC's who have tried to convert me claim one is immediately saved, like, now.

Is it possible to reach the 'top of the Christian ladder' in this one life, not just after death.

Being careful not to quote you, because I can see you did NOT say that one can reach the top of Buddhist ladder' in one's life, only that other religions do NOT offer that option. Therefore it seems you were saying Buddhism does. If yoiu were, it is not the only one.

While some of the Posters in here have been very clear, helpful and explanatory, others seem to be deliberately platitudinal.

[camerata]

If you could define, then, what you meant by 'this life' and, then, show where it says that would be in the spirit of helping. Of course, you don't have to.

"This life" means between the day you were born and the day you die, as opposed to in a future rebirth. The point is that in Theravada Buddhism you don't have to wait for a future rebirth to attain the ultimate goal of nibbana. This is different from Mahayana, where you have to have to wait until all sentient beings are liberated until you can attain buddhahood. It's also different from Christianity, where the ultimate goal is being in heaven with God. I don't know of any mainstream religion other than Theravada Buddhism where you can attain the ultimate goal in your current human lifetime.

[eggomaniac]

If you could define, then, what you meant by 'this life' and, then, show where it says that would be in the spirit of helping. Of course, you don't have to.

"This life" means between the day you were born and the day you die, as opposed to in a future rebirth. The point is that in Theravada Buddhism you don't have to wait for a future rebirth to attain the ultimate goal of nibbana. This is different from Mahayana, where you have to have to wait until all sentient beings are liberated until you can attain buddhahood. It's also different from Christianity, where the ultimate goal is being in heaven with God. I don't know of any mainstream religion other than Theravada Buddhism where you can attain the ultimate goal in your current human lifetime.

this life, one life, this one life, that is exactly what I meant, too, and I'm back to a few Posts ago whereby I'm amazed. First time in my life I heard of of Buddhists having a chance to get to the top of the ladder in this life. More details would be appreciated, like where it says that. It might no make sense it took Buddha hundreds of lives and I could do it one life, unless there is wording that He left 'tools', supplied ingredients that the World never had before he came around.

----on the other , minor point,

As a Catholic youth it was taught that we could attain salvation on earth, during our lifetime, like these folks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_saints . Of course, it weren't going to be easy, but one could be with God before death if you were saintly.

Now I'm going to have ask a born again Christian friend, yechh, well he ain't that bad about it, but he makes it sound like the ultimate goal has been attained, life in Jesus. Another, more nutty guy, definetly claimed he was a saint of Jesus. I guess it was better than the miserable drinking and cheating on his wife which led him to find Jesus.

Now I'm not saying Canonization or living with Christ sainthood is really the top of the ladder, They say it is, it just goes to the point that there are other religions that profess a worldy, in one's lifetime top rung that can reached.

Edit : the internet is SO amazing 240,000 hits in .25 seconds on the topic of whether, or not, Buddhist can attain salvation in one's life. some saying NO one saying within 3 years. yikes

Edited March 18, 2010 by eggomaniac

[phetaroi]

I don't know of any mainstream religion other than Theravada Buddhism where you can attain the ultimate goal in your current human lifetime.

Just to clarify, you are calling Theravada Buddhism a religion? Not a criticism either way...just an interesting part of the ongoing discussion in this forum.

[camerata]

this life, one life, this one life, that is exactly what I meant, too, and I'm back to a few Posts ago whereby I'm amazed. First time in my life I heard of of Buddhists having a chance to get to the top of the ladder in this life. More details would be appreciated, like where it says that. It might no make sense it took Buddha hundreds of lives and I could do it one life, unless there is wording that He left 'tools', supplied ingredients that the World never had before he came around.

You're still getting confused between this life and one life. It's a comparison: this life as opposed to a future life. It's not a comparison between one life and many lives. I did not imply that when you attain nibbana in this life that you hadn't had other previous lives. As far of Buddhism is concerned, we've all had an infinite number of lives because when the Buddha read his previous lives, he said, "No beginning can be found..."

The point of the comparison is that you can get proof of the ultimate goal of Theravada Buddhism here and now. It's not something that is promised after death and therefore can't be proved.

[camerata]

Here is the famous Mahasatipatthana Sutta in which the Buddha says that we can attain enlightenment (arahantship) by practising in a certain way for only 7 days:

To summarize, he is firmly mindful of the fact that only dhammas exist (not a soul, a self or I). That mindfulness is just for gaining insight (vipassana) and mindfulness progressively. Being detached from craving and wrong views he dwells without clinging to anything in the world. Thus, bhikkhus, in this way a bhikkhu dwells perceiving again and again the Four Noble Truths as just the Four Noble Truths.

Indeed, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas in this manner for seven years, one of two results is to be expected in him: Arahatship in this very existence, or if there yet be any trace of clinging, the state of an Anagami.

Let alone seven years, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas in this manner for six years, five years, four years, three years, two years, or one year.

Let alone one year, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas in this manner for seven months, one of two results is to be expected in him: Arahatship in this very existence, or if there yet be any trace of clinging, the state of an Anagami.

Let alone seven months, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas in this manner for six months, five months, four months, three months, two months, one month, or half a month.

Let alone half a month, bhikkhus, whosoever practises these four satipatthanas in this manner for seven days, one of two results is to be expected in him: Arahatship in this very existence or if there yet be any trace of clinging, the state of an Anagami.

This is what I meant when I said: "Bhikkhus, this is the one and the only way for the purification (of the minds) of beings, for overcoming sorrow and lamentation, for the cessation of physical and mental pain, for attainment of the Noble Paths, and for the realization of Nibbana. That only way is the four satipatthanas".

Here is what I previously said, but written more eloquently by Ven Narada:

Nibbana is a supramundane state attainable even in this present life. Buddhism does not state that this ultimate goal could be reached only in a life beyond. Here lies the chief difference between the Buddhist conception of Nibbana and the non-Buddhist conception of an eternal heaven attainable only after death or a union with a God or Divine Essence in an after-life.

[fabianfred]

I also saw it summarised as...One who seriously practices for seven days, or seven months, or seven years, or seven lives.... implying that such a one can expect to reach Sotapanna in this very lifetime....at least.

[eggomaniac]

I don't know of any mainstream religion other than Theravada Buddhism where you can attain the ultimate goal in your current human lifetime.

Just to clarify, you are calling Theravada Buddhism a religion? Not a criticism either way...just an interesting part of the ongoing discussion in this forum.

Well, speaking of platitudalism.

"Is Buddhism a religion" gets 1,000,000 hits on Google and it's thouroughly discussed. For the prupose of this Thread it's the 99% of what people call Buddhism a religion definition.

It's seems like we are all wrong, from my scan of the 1,000,000, titles, it seems that some people, technically, don't class Buddhism as a religion, because of no god and beliefs? or something like that.

There is obviously a great deal of interest in that Topic, but it doesn't make much difference to this one; which is dealing about the question of reincarnartion, rebirth, and when salvation, nirvana, enlightenment can be attained by 'what is called the religion' of Buddhism.

If you do start a new Topic, I can already tell you, I could easily stop calling Buddhism a religion, that is NO BIG DEAL; but suggest you put in the first paragraph WHAT your OPINION is on what it should be called? I'll call it whatever you want!

school?, cult? platitudism?