Are There Buddhist Accounts Of People Speaking To The Dead?

[rockyysdt]

We have spoken at length of re birth, & how the essence of a person upon death becomes the spark for rebirth, & is shaped by khamma & ones state at the time of death.

A young boy raised by a Buddhist Thai family recently died in unexpected circumstances last week on another continent.

Back in Thailand, without any knowledge of his death the young boy appeared before his cousin who spoke to him. His cousins mother turned to see who her son was talking to and there was no one there.

The child & his cousin had been very close and had been raised together in the same family home.

Did the Buddha speak of the dead appearing shortly after death?

Does this fit into the Buddhist philosophy & teaching of re birth?

[voracious]

Short answer is yes. It's described here:

http://www.angelsghosts.com/ghosts_buddhism

In Thai culture, where Buddhism is also mixed with a bit of Animism & Brahmanism with a healthy dose of ancient superstitions and belief it's quite a rich culture, indeed.

The same Buddhists also teach that ghosts can remain around people through their concern and love for them. It is also thought that some ghosts are lost due to not understanding their own death and the existence of the afterlife.

There was recently a Thai movie that dealt with that subject, namely, that a spirit can "remain" here out of love and concern for someone left behind.

Perhaps not the scholarly answer you wanted, but I hope it helps a bit?

[Brucenkhamen]

As Voracious has mentioned it's very much part of Thai culture and comes from their pre-Buddhist animism.

However I don't know of any instance of talking to the dead being recorded in the Pali Canon as an historical event.

I don't think it really makes sense in relation to the Buddhist take on rebirth, and even if it did would only be seen as another source of craving and attachment.

While some Thai monks practice these kinds of arts it's often banned in the Wats that keep a high standard of vinaya.

[phetaroi]

Short answer is yes. It's described here:

http://www.angelsghosts.com/ghosts_buddhism

In Thai culture, where Buddhism is also mixed with a bit of Animism & Brahmanism with a healthy dose of ancient superstitions and belief it's quite a rich culture, indeed.

...

Perhaps not the scholarly answer you wanted, but I hope it helps a bit?

True, not scholarly at all. But I like the way in which you phrased, "with a healthy dose of ancient superstitions and belief it's quite a rich culture, indeed."

I think most of us here on the forum can separate these cultural aspects from purer Buddhism. Note I said purer, rather than purest. Buddhist legend is something that is quite historical. FOr example:

* Queen Māyā dreams of a divine Bodhisattva on white elephant touching her side and she becomes pregnant

* the Buddha-to-be was residing as a Bodhisattva in Tuṣita heaven and decided to take the shape of a white elephant to be reborn for the last time on Earth

* Prince Siddhārtha emerged from his mother's right side

* Some accounts that it was a virgin birth

* Heavenly wonders appeared in the sky

* Prophecies of one or the other auspicious "careers"

Again, as you said, a rich culture, indeed, and interesting from the perspective of "selling" Buddhism to the masses. Or is that too cynical?

I liked your post!

[fabianfred]

The works in Thai about the life of L.P.Jaran often tell stories about things like this.

A woman sending her 'spirit' ( in the book it was called 'Chetaphut') to go and visit the abbot to tell him that she was going to die the next day and where she wanted her funeral to be held...the dek wat who looked after the guti saw her and was concerned for the abbot being alone with a woman...but he reassured him that it was not a real person...upon which the boy was scared of ghosts.

[Xangsamhua]

However I don't know of any instance of talking to the dead being recorded in the Pali Canon as an historical event.

Does something have to be in the Pali Canon to be legitimate, or worth considering?

[Xangsamhua]

The works in Thai about the life of L.P.Jaran often tell stories about things like this.

Yes, there are several stories in a similar vein in LP Jaran's books (they're in English, too). I think most Thai Buddhists are brought up on stories of this kind - communication with the dead, transkinesis, accounts of previous lives, etc. Wat Dharmakaya's founder, LP Soth's disciple, Khun Yay, is said to have visited petitioners’ deceased relatives in hel_l and transferred the petitioners’ merit to those who were suffering the pains of damnation.

I wouldn't discount stories of this kind, but the ready acceptance of them by so many Thai people could lend itself to manipulation by charlatans. Unfortunately, even to suggest that seems to be regarded as impolite.

[phetaroi]

However I don't know of any instance of talking to the dead being recorded in the Pali Canon as an historical event.

Does something have to be in the Pali Canon to be legitimate, or worth considering?

Egads!

[Xangsamhua]

However I don't know of any instance of talking to the dead being recorded in the Pali Canon as an historical event.

Does something have to be in the Pali Canon to be legitimate, or worth considering?

Egads!

Mai khaojai.

[camerata]

However I don't know of any instance of talking to the dead being recorded in the Pali Canon as an historical event.

Does something have to be in the Pali Canon to be legitimate, or worth considering?

But that wasn't the question. The question was: "Does this fit into the Buddhist philosophy & teaching of re birth?" Where else are you going to look for a reference on (Theravada) Buddhist philosophy but the Pali Canon?

However, some Thai monks take the view that since inevitably parts of the Buddha's teaching (and mention of supernatural phenomena) never made it into the Canon, or were lost, there are things an arahant knows/experiences that aren't mentioned anywhere in the scriptures (see Ajahn Boowa and his biography of Ajahn Man). That's a tough one to dispute.

[Xangsamhua]

However I don't know of any instance of talking to the dead being recorded in the Pali Canon as an historical event.

Does something have to be in the Pali Canon to be legitimate, or worth considering?

But that wasn't the question. The question was: "Does this fit into the Buddhist philosophy & teaching of re birth?" Where else are you going to look for a reference on (Theravada) Buddhist philosophy but the Pali Canon?

However, some Thai monks take the view that since inevitably parts of the Buddha's teaching (and mention of supernatural phenomena) never made it into the Canon, or were lost, there are things an arahant knows/experiences that aren't mentioned anywhere in the scriptures (see Ajahn Boowa and his biography of Ajahn Man). That's a tough one to dispute.

Right, and I see the OP asked specifically, "Did the Buddha speak of the dead appearing shortly after death?", and the Pali Canon is the most authentic record of the Buddha's sayings. Point taken.

However, there's been a lot written and taught about rebirth since the closure of the Pali Canon (c250 BCE), hasn't there? Personally, I don't know that a Buddhist has to restrict himself only to what the Buddha was said to have taught. Religious teaching can evolve.

Thank you for the reference to Ajahn Man. Is Ajahn Boowa's book available in English?

[phetaroi]

However, there's been a lot written and taught about rebirth since the closure of the Pali Canon (c250 BCE), hasn't there? Personally, I don't know that a Buddhist has to restrict himself only to what the Buddha was said to have taught. Religious teaching can evolve.

Hey...some of us get in hot water for saying things like that!

[camerata]

However, there's been a lot written and taught about rebirth since the closure of the Pali Canon (c250 BCE), hasn't there?

But was it written from the personal experience of a buddha? That's what gives the teachings the stamp of authority, because a buddha has powers that an arahant, a monk and a layman don't.

Personally, I don't know that a Buddhist has to restrict himself only to what the Buddha was said to have taught. Religious teaching can evolve.

Evolve into what? Isn't a "Buddhist" a follower of the Buddha's teachings? In this particular case, how does talking to the dead help with the elimination of suffering?

Thank you for the reference to Ajahn Man. Is Ajahn Boowa's book available in English?

Yes.

[Xangsamhua]

However, there's been a lot written and taught about rebirth since the closure of the Pali Canon (c250 BCE), hasn't there?

But was it written from the personal experience of a buddha? That's what gives the teachings the stamp of authority, because a buddha has powers that an arahant, a monk and a layman don't.

Personally, I don't know that a Buddhist has to restrict himself only to what the Buddha was said to have taught. Religious teaching can evolve.

Evolve into what? Isn't a "Buddhist" a follower of the Buddha's teachings? In this particular case, how does talking to the dead help with the elimination of suffering?

Thank you for the reference to Ajahn Man. Is Ajahn Boowa's book available in English?

Yes.

Yes, I may be moving away from a strictly Buddhist position if I say that the "personal" experience of the Buddha was one of a sage who lived 2500 years ago in the Uttar Pradesh-Bihar border region, and that while some of what he taught on the basis of that experience may be timeless, there may also be room for development, as has in fact occurred, though its content is disputed.

I agree that talking to the dead seems a bit pointless, as I don't know that the dead have much to offer. They seem to have as restricted a horizon as the living do. I'm agnostic as to whether it really happens, but accept that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". (Hamlet 1:5)

[Xangsamhua]

However, there's been a lot written and taught about rebirth since the closure of the Pali Canon (c250 BCE), hasn't there? Personally, I don't know that a Buddhist has to restrict himself only to what the Buddha was said to have taught. Religious teaching can evolve.

Hey...some of us get in hot water for saying things like that!

Perhaps not "hot water", Phetaroi, but a point of intellectual departure, at least for the moment. I would hope that the Buddhism (not "Buddhist") forum is exploratory rather than definitive and exclusionary.

[phetaroi]

However, there's been a lot written and taught about rebirth since the closure of the Pali Canon (c250 BCE), hasn't there?

But was it written from the personal experience of a buddha? That's what gives the teachings the stamp of authority, because a buddha has powers that an arahant, a monk and a layman don't.

Personally, I don't know that a Buddhist has to restrict himself only to what the Buddha was said to have taught. Religious teaching can evolve.

Evolve into what? Isn't a "Buddhist" a follower of the Buddha's teachings? In this particular case, how does talking to the dead help with the elimination of suffering?

Thank you for the reference to Ajahn Man. Is Ajahn Boowa's book available in English?

Yes.

I think Xangsamhua's thoughts have great value from several perspectives, although I would add one phrase -- instead of only saying "Religious teaching can evolve", I would also say "Interpretation of religious teaching can evolve." Now, before someone says you're not supposed to reinterpret what Buddha said, interpretation of what someone says begins the moment the words are spoken for the first time, and every time since...in fact, interpretation of what someone says often begins before they say it as the listener interprets body language. And, in re the evolution of the interpretation of Buddha's teachings...most of the learned people on this forum, at one point or another, reference some monk or other respected person's writings about Buddhism.

The other aspect of reinterpreting Buddhas words -- if they are his words (rather than a wonderful paraphrase) -- is that they may apply somewhat differently in today's world than they did in a primitive agrarian culture 2,500 years ago. And before someone says that's not true, the publishing arm of official Buddhism in Thailand has published several books -- translated into English -- about just that topic.

[Brucenkhamen]

Does something have to be in the Pali Canon to be legitimate, or worth considering?

I regards to answering these two questions then yes;

Did the Buddha speak of the dead appearing shortly after death?

Does this fit into the Buddhist philosophy & teaching of re birth?

I'm sure there are all kinds of writings that have the Buddha doing all sorts of magical stuff, even after his death. I can't answer whether any of those could be considered historical evidence regarding the above questions.

[camerata]

"Interpretation of religious teaching can evolve."

But do the teachings evolve in Buddhism? "Evolve" means "to develop gradually." Can you give me an example of one of the Buddha's core teachings that has developed gradually over the last 2500 years? Apart from Mahayana, in which monks simply made up new sutras with new concepts and attributed some of them to the Buddha, what I see in recent decades is some people giving different interpretations of what the Buddha meant because the original text is so vague or our knowledge of Pali limited, and because they want to get closer to the original meaning. And there are people who apply the Buddha's teaching to slightly different objectives. But none of this is an evolution in interpretation of the doctrine.

The core of the Buddha's teaching in the suttas is mental cultivation, and the way the human mind works with regard to self and suffering hasn't changed much in 2500 years. That's why the original teachings still work today.

[camerata]

We have spoken at length of re birth, & how the essence of a person upon death becomes the spark for rebirth, & is shaped by khamma & ones state at the time of death.

I think this rules out the idea of a "human spirit" (or winyarn in Thai) temporarily hanging around on earth after death as it does in Tibetan Buddhism or Thai folklore, but of course a preta, deva or naga is in effect a human on earth "after death" and there's plenty of talk about them both in the Canon and Ajahn Man's biography. In the latter, Ajahn Man is always in samadhi when he talks with them and they are sometimes explained as nimitta (mental images). My own opinion is that they are all nimitta.

[Xangsamhua]

Does something have to be in the Pali Canon to be legitimate, or worth considering?

I regards to answering these two questions then yes;

Did the Buddha speak of the dead appearing shortly after death?

Does this fit into the Buddhist philosophy & teaching of re birth?

I'm sure there are all kinds of writings that have the Buddha doing all sorts of magical stuff, even after his death. I can't answer whether any of those could be considered historical evidence regarding the above questions.

Thanks BK, and I did acknowledge that in a post above: "Right, and I see the OP asked specifically, "Did the Buddha speak of the dead appearing shortly after death?", and the Pali Canon is the most authentic record of the Buddha's sayings. Point taken."

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[camerata]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". (Hamlet 1:5)

Sure, but the Buddha addressed this specific point in the "handful of leaves" episode. The stuff he knew but didn't teach, he didn't teach because it didn't lead to nibbana and would only have been a distraction.

[phetaroi]

But do the teachings evolve in Buddhism? "Evolve" means "to develop gradually." Can you give me an example of one of the Buddha's core teachings that has developed gradually over the last 2500 years? Apart from Mahayana, in which monks simply made up new sutras with new concepts and attributed some of them to the Buddha, what I see in recent decades is some people giving different interpretations of what the Buddha meant because the original text is so vague or our knowledge of Pali limited, and because they want to get closer to the original meaning. And there are people who apply the Buddha's teaching to slightly different objectives. But none of this is an evolution in interpretation of the doctrine.

The core of the Buddha's teaching in the suttas is mental cultivation, and the way the human mind works with regard to self and suffering hasn't changed much in 2500 years. That's why the original teachings still work today.

Your chosen definition of evolve is one definition. Another common use is "to develop" (as you also indicate). Can I give you an example of a core teaching that has developed? My answer is simple. Have you read a single book about Buddhist thought other than the Dhamma? Have you listened to a single talk by a Buddhist monk other than a recitation of the Dhamma? If the answer to either of those questions is yes -- and I know it is because you have referenced other sources than Dhamma is some posts -- than you have read or listened to a discussion of Buddhist thought...something beyond Buddha's own words (which are probably not really his own words).

Although I did not bring them back to Thailand with me when I moved here, in the past I have read books officially approved by the Buddhist hierarchy of Thailand, that have related to interpreting the relationship between Buddhism and modern forms of government, as well as another that dealt with Buddhist ethics in the 20th century.

You seem to be saying that "the core of Buddha's teaching in the suttas is mental cultivation", but don't actually cultivate your mind based on Buddhism.

It's all right to believe in static Buddhism. Some of us, however, can find nothing at all in this world that does not evolve in some way. As I indicated previously, it isn't the words in the Dhamma that have evolved, as much as it is the interpretation of the words.

For example, if 1,000 Buddhists read the following:

"Develop the mind of equilibrium.

You will always be getting praise and blame,

but do not let either affect the poise of the mind:

follow the calmness, the absence of pride."

Are you telling me that all 1,000 people will interpret that sutta in exactly the same way and practice it in exactly the same way?

[phetaroi]

The stuff he knew but didn't teach, he didn't teach because it didn't lead to nibbana and would only have been a distraction.

So, are you that he was "all knowing and all seeing"?

[Xangsamhua]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". (Hamlet 1:5)

Sure, but the Buddha addressed this specific point in the "handful of leaves" episode. The stuff he knew but didn't teach, he didn't teach because it didn't lead to nibbana and would only have been a distraction.

Thank you, but why the "but"? Why not "and"? That is, "... and the Buddha addressed this in the "handful of leaves" episode."

That the Buddha (1) taught the essence of what he knew, (2) did not teach the things he did not know, (3) taught what he knew in a form his listeners could understand, and (4) did not teach them the things they could not understand implies to me that he was a wise and masterful teacher who adapted the scope and method of his teaching to his audiences as well as his own limits.

However, although the essence of the Buddha's teaching may be purposeful method, i.e. what one must do to minimize suffering - one's own, perhaps, in the first instance, but that of other beings by virtue of our interdependence, it has clear ethical implications (as in the preceding clause), and the longer term purpose, i.e. nibbana, implies an ontological and, perhaps, cosmological philosophy as well.

If attainment of nibbana requires cessation from becoming, which implies detachment from the idea of self and permanence, then the Buddha is, by default at least, teaching an ontology of immaterialism, yet a unified realm of being which is infinite and uncreated, maintained by constant cause and effect. Hence, no Creator but eternal creation. Such an ontology must attract speculation, which the Buddha didn't invite or encourage, but left to those who couldn't leave it alone - Abhidhamma, Madhyamaka, Yogacara, etc., all of which were post-parinibbana and/or post-Pali Canon.

At least that's how I see it at this point in my studies. I'm happy to be corrected. I'm currently looking at a commentary by Thich Nhat Hanh (Understanding Our Mind. Parallax. 2006) on Vasubandhu's Thirty Verses, a fourth century work that, as I understand it, explicates the Yogacara, "manifestation-only" tradition. To me it's developmental, though some centuries post-Buddha and post-Canon. Thinking about "mind-only" may help me come to terms with infinity and causation. The Buddha's reported personal teaching does not really help me with that. Indeed, he suggested I shouldn't be bothered with it, but that was just his view and it fitted his priorities, i.e. method and discipline.

[eggomaniac]

http://www.buddhadasa.com/naturaltruth/kalamasutta1.html

4. Ma pitakasampadanena: do not accept and believe just because something is cited in a pitaka. The word "pitaka," which is used for the Buddhist scriptures, means anything written or inscribed upon any suitable writing material. Memorized teachings which are passed on orally should not be confused with pitaka. Pitakas are a certain kind of conditioned thing which are under humanity's control. They can be created, improved, and changed by human hands. So we cannot trust every letter and word in them. We need to use our powers of discrimination to see how those words can be applied to the quenching of suffering. The various schools of Buddhism all have their own cannons, among which there are discrepancies. <<< Buddhasasa

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

Do you believe that the boy was conversing with his deceased cousin? Maybe that is the question that should be asked, not whether it is provable by some scripts on palm leaves.

I do, and have had similar experiences. A few years ago my father was ill in the hospital and I was waiting outside a college building for a friend who was still finishing an exam we had written.

I 'saw' my dad looking around in a flower garden there and my previously deceased sister take him by the hand and they walked off. I phoned my mom with full 'knowledge' he had passed away and it had happened just then just as I 'knew'.

I have had a handful of experiences like this.

Many decades ago a Thai friend, Boonsithis, was in a TB hospital in Edmonton. He practiced Buddhism by concentrating on a picture of his 'monk'. His grandfather, after divesting of family life, had become an orange robe monk. He reached a level whereby he passed on in a conscious state with a flower held to his bosom. Boon's grandmother became a white robe nun.

Boon was going to have an operation to have the top part of one of his lungs removed and did not want to worry his family. [back then it was all letter writing.] She sent a letter, though, and I saw the diagram, of the vision she had of someone cutting his right top lung out and for him to not allow this.

Boon and I had talked about how he could meditate and clear the lung, as I had done, but he calculated the 'karma' of the operation would secure his Landed Immigrant status which he was appealing.

She 'saw' this from thousands of miles away.

If stuff like this is not written in Buddhist liturgy, in my opinion, it should be.

[phetaroi]

http://www.buddhadasa.com/naturaltruth/kalamasutta1.html

4. Ma pitakasampadanena: do not accept and believe just because something is cited in a pitaka. The word "pitaka," which is used for the Buddhist scriptures, means anything written or inscribed upon any suitable writing material. Memorized teachings which are passed on orally should not be confused with pitaka. Pitakas are a certain kind of conditioned thing which are under humanity's control. They can be created, improved, and changed by human hands. So we cannot trust every letter and word in them. We need to use our powers of discrimination to see how those words can be applied to the quenching of suffering. The various schools of Buddhism all have their own cannons, among which there are discrepancies. <<< Buddhasasa

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

A few years ago my father was ill in the hospital and I was waiting outside a college building for a friend who was still finishing an exam we had written.

I 'saw' my dad looking around in a flower garden there and my previously deceased sister take him by the hand and they walked off. I phoned my mom with full 'knowledge' he had passed away and it had happened just then just as I 'knew'.

I have had a handful of experiences like this.

Very interesting post. I had a somewhat similar experience with my father, who had been in the hospital and unlikely to recover. I spent almost a week up there visiting him and then, on the day when I had to return home and go to work...when I arrived at the hospital he instructed me to leave then and return home, and got very agitated when I said I was going to stay with him several more hours. "No. You have to go now because they will take me when you arrive home." His state of agitation about me following his wish was great, so I acceded. It was always a 6-7 hour drive back home (central NYS to Virginia). Five minutes after I arrived home...some 6.5 hours after I left him...the hospital called and said my father had passed. I asked for the exact time of death...after a pause to check records -- his exact time of death was the exact time I arrived home.

I doubt this is "covered" in the Dhamma. Or am I wrong.

[eggomaniac]

"We have spoken at length of re birth, & how the essence of a person upon death becomes the spark for rebirth, & is shaped by khamma & ones state at the time of death."

Rocky,

You mentioned re birth. Is it correct to conclude you are trying to calculate the possible existence of ghosts in terms of whether there is reincarnation or rebirth? I was struggling with same concept of how there could be ghosts but not reincarnation.

The consensus in this Forum is that Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation, but that is an unresolved issue in dozens of other Forums.

Here is one example, called 'Buddha is proof of Reincarnation'.

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

The logic that re birth kicks in after highly transcendent level is reached, whereby there is even separation from the soul, is logical to me. It, also, makes sense to me that for those of us with lower levels of 'development' we could easily be subject to reincarnation, when we still have a soul.

I believe that once sages experience retro-cognitive knowledge of their reincarnations that is when the down payment has been made for moving into re birthing. The existence of ghosts would fit into that design quite well, but not the straight 'everyone is re birthed' 'belief'.

[phetaroi]

Here is one example, called 'Buddha is proof of Reincarnation'.

Thank you for referencing that article. I found it interesting.

One question that popped up in my mind is...so the Jataka tales are part of the Theravada Buddhist scriptures...correct?

Why is believing that Buddha lived 357 past lives as a human, 66 as a god, and 123 as an animal more logical than believing in 1 God?

[Xangsamhua]

Here is one example, called 'Buddha is proof of Reincarnation'.

Thank you for referencing that article. I found it interesting.

One question that popped up in my mind is...so the Jataka tales are part of the Theravada Buddhist scriptures...correct?

Why is believing that Buddha lived 357 past lives as a human, 66 as a god, and 123 as an animal more logical than believing in 1 God?

I understand the Jataka Tales to be part of the Theravada corpus of scripture, but non-canonical, i.e. not having doctrinal status. However, they were until the first part of the 20th century a popular means by which the villagers and townspeople of Thailand and Laos were taught basic Buddhist beliefs and ethics. The Vesantara/Vesandorn story was particularly popular. They were dramatized and recited at temple fairs and some monks became quite famous for their ability to render the stories, reciting all the different voices themselves. People really looked forward to these recitations, but they lost favour after the Siamese Buddhist reforms in the late 19th century began to take effect.

Mahayana has Jataka Tales, too, including some unknown in the Theravada tradition.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[camerata]

Thank you, but why the "but"? Why not "and"? That is, "... and the Buddha addressed this in the "handful of leaves" episode."

OK. "And..."

by default at least, teaching an ontology of immaterialism, yet a unified realm of being which is infinite and uncreated, maintained by constant cause and effect. Hence, no Creator but eternal creation.

AFAIK, nibbana is "unconditioned,' meaning not subject to cause and effect. So I don't think the above can be correct. On the other hand, we only have the Buddha's word for that.