Are There Buddhist Accounts Of People Speaking To The Dead?

[camerata]

That's why I remember it was definitely you who confided stream entry achievement in this lifetime. It was about a year ago. I'd have to do an extensive search to locate the post.

Well, I wouldn't deny it. My opinion is that the average person can reach sotapanna if they start early enough and try hard enough. I certainly never said I was aiming for it, though.

In light of what you say, our conventional "I" has large odds against it succeeding. Therefore, in terms of becoming enlightened, it's on a par with the Christian promise. The chances of an individual conventional "l" becoming enlightened in its lifetime approaches infinity.

But obviously I don't believe that at all, even though the Canon seems to imply it. I take a pretty agnostic view on this. If you have a mind, you can attain nibbana in this life, and it's desirable because you get to cheat death and attain the Deathless.

Doesn't belief in a "stream you" pander to the ego?

Isn't it a roundabout way of of describing a spirit or immortal entity which never dies but attaches itself to one of many conventional "I's".

That's something you have to decide for yourself after reading the description of it in the Abhidhamma. One mind-moment conditioning another mind-moment ad infinitum isn't something I feel very personal about. What I do feel personal about is what's going to happen to Camerata between now and his last breath!

Ven Buddhadasa said that the summary of all the Buddha's teaching is: "Nothing in this world is worth holding on to." I think that's the mental state one has to aim for to attain nibbana. With that attitude, you don't even bother thinking about what'll happen in future lives.

[Xangsamhua]

If you have a mind, you can attain nibbana in this life, and it's desirable because you get to cheat death and attain the Deathless.

Ven Buddhadasa said that the summary of all the Buddha's teaching is: "Nothing in this world is worth holding on to." I think that's the mental state one has to aim for to attain nibbana. With that attitude, you don't even bother thinking about what'll happen in future lives.

I'm uncertain about the difference between a mental state and mental events. A meditation teacher of world repute tells us (via online course) as part of our meditation, to focus on the mind, as it is, not as a series of mental events - the latter are like clouds in a boundless sky. But I can't think of my mind this way. It's not a box, not a container of thoughts and images and memories. So what is it, other than mental events? And, how, therefore, can nibbana be a "state" to aim for? I'm not debating here; this is a genuine query.

[eggomaniac]

I'm not sure that, philosophically, the God question is all that important.

It's important if one thinks God had a personal interest in you the individual, you the tribe or you the species, and has put in place some system that enables you to live on after death. This makes letting go of self-view impossible, IMO. Personally, I don't buy the idea that God and/or heaven are substantially the same as nibbana. According to the Canon, nibbana is extinguishment.

This *'interpretation' makes for a most fascinating Post! The ultimate goal of a Christian is being described as the worst outcome for a Buddhist, and vice versa; the ultimate goal of Buddhist is being described as the worst outcome for a Christian. A mindless, no self and no soul with no God, let alone a caring one, could be an entry in a Christian dictionary describing hel_l; while a mindful belief that one's person can find everlasting favour from God for their soul is being described as a big stick in the mud, preventing advancement.

With all due respect, *I don't think extinguishment was referring to non existence of God and beings. It is likely, talking about the resisting earthly temptations. I mean, where is Buddha right now and why do Buddhists pray to to Him? [from 200 years ago > O Thou Eternal One, Thou perfection of Time, Thou truest Truth, Thou immutable essence of all Change, Thou most excellent radiance of Mercy, Thou infinite Compassion, Thou Pity, Thou Charity!<]

from 200 years ago, applicable today. [> Buddhism cannot be clearly defined by its visible results today. There are more things in that subtle, mystical enigma called Niphphan (Nirvana) than dreamed in our Western philosophy. With the idea of Niphphan in His theology, it were absurdly false to say Buddhism has no God.< ]

<<< Dr J W Palmer. 1860's

If the ultimate Goal is complete extinguishment, why didn't Buddha 'disappear' when he reached the highest conscousiosness? Instead he talked to Bramha about how he explain it all to mortals and Indra, the Chief God, handed over the reign of the Pantheon. Funny He could do this when they don't exist, eh?

In another Post you said Buddhists don't believe in Creation, however Buddha talked about a state of Uncreatedness AND a state of Creation.

There are enough archeological 'findings' around the World to show the there are Other Worldly Beings. Many ascribe these to Super Aliens. I happen to believe these are the works of 'the' Pantheon, the Gods of Greece, India, Egypt, all the same, with different names in different languages. Did you know Egypt and Thailand have very similar 'worshipped' symbols with crocodiles, scarabs and pigs?

The matter of proof though, not belief, that God exists is the coming true of Prophesies. Anybody who can write down events 2000 years ahead is a bit more than a Super Alien.

Red Heifers are now born in Israel, the Temple will be rebuilt within decades, the Berlin Wall went down, America will fail, (has failed) as a Nation, the Jews now believe Christ is the Messiah, and so on, all prophesized.

How could anyone predict these events without 'help' from an eternal, immutable, infinite Knower of Time?

[Xangsamhua]

I’m not sure that, philosophically, the God question is all that important.

It's important if one thinks God had a personal interest in you the individual, you the tribe or you the species, and has put in place some system that enables you to live on after death.

Yes, if you move on from the philosophical proposition that a noumenal "ground of being" is reasonable to a position of faith that God loves you, etc. That is, you move from Spinoza's (and Einstein's) God to the anthropomorphic one of theist religion.

I can't get my head around "extinguishment". That seems to be not a "state", but a "non-state" - nothing. Some definitions of God reduce him to, effectively, "nothing", and the mystics tried to get their heads around this in non-cognitive (meditative) ways. However, the "nothing" in this case is nevertheless a state of being, but supra-existential, and therefore incomprehensible through cognition. It is, after all, the "ground of being", so has force, but no conditions, components or humanoid attributes. The mystics had a sense, though, of being caught up in something overwhelming and positive, but that may have been their Christian conditioning kicking in.

[camerata]

If you have a mind, you can attain nibbana in this life, and it's desirable because you get to cheat death and attain the Deathless.

Ven Buddhadasa said that the summary of all the Buddha's teaching is: "Nothing in this world is worth holding on to." I think that's the mental state one has to aim for to attain nibbana. With that attitude, you don't even bother thinking about what'll happen in future lives.

And, how, therefore, can nibbana be a "state" to aim for? I'm not debating here; this is a genuine query.

Thich Nhat Hanh again? If you look carefully at my post, I said not holding on to anything was the mental state to aim for if one wants a shot at nibbana.

[phetaroi]

If the definition of "right speech" is, in part to "abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others", then the line has been crossed as this thread has proceeded. We should be able to discuss these matters without crossing that line.

[camerata]

I can't get my head around "extinguishment". That seems to be not a "state", but a "non-state" - nothing. Some definitions of God reduce him to, effectively, "nothing", and the mystics tried to get their heads around this in non-cognitive (meditative) ways. However, the "nothing" in this case is nevertheless a state of being, but supra-existential, and therefore incomprehensible through cognition.

I think you have to remember that nibbana and parinibbana are beyond conceptual thinking. Even the Buddha couldn't give specifics as to what they are, and declined to answer questions about whether he would or would not exist after he died. I think to him the question no longer made any sense since there wasn't any "I" to continue existing. Having achieved oneness with everything else, one could say that something continues, but I've never seen anything to suggest that it is a conscious something. There is no "eternal bliss of nirvana" in Theravada Buddhism.

From Nyanatiloka's Buddhist dictionary:

One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not only for the actual realization of the goal of Nibbāna, but also for a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable preliminary condition to grasp fully the truth of anattā, the egolessness and insubstantiality of all forms of existence. Without such an understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nibbāna - according to one's either materialistic or metaphysical leanings - either as annihilation of an ego, or as an eternal state of existence into which an ego or self enters or with which it merges. Hence it is said:

Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;

The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there;

Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;

The path is, but no traveler on it is seen.; Vis.MXVI

[camerata]

With all due respect, *I don't think extinguishment was referring to non existence of God and beings.

I didn't say it was. Check what the dictionary says about nibbana and parinibbana:

The 2 aspects of Nibbāna are:

1: The full ceasing of defilements kilesa-parinibbāna also called sa-upādi-sesa-nibbāna see: It. 41, i.e. 'Nibbāna with the groups of existence still remaining' see: upādi. This takes place at the attainment of Arahatship, or perfect Nobility see: ariya-puggala.

2: The full ceasing of the groups of existence khandha-parinibbāna also called an-upādi-sesa-nibbāna see: It. 41, A. IV, 118, i.e. 'Nibbāna without the groups remaining', in other words, the coming to rest, or rather the 'no-more-continuing' of this physico-mental process of existence. This takes place at the death of the Arahat. - App.: Nibbāna.

Sometimes both aspects take place at one and the same moment, i.e. at the death of the Arahat; see: sama-sīsī

This, o Bhikkhus, truly is the peace, this is the highest, namely the end of all constructions, the forsaking of every substratum of rebirth, the fading away of craving, detachment, ceasing, Nibbāna; A. III, 32.

In other words, nibbana is the extinguishment of defilements, parinibbana is the extinguishment of the physico-mental process of existence. The Buddha didn't cease to exist when he attained nibbana - only when he attained parinibbana 40 years later.

I mean, where is Buddha right now and why do Buddhists pray to to Him?

The Buddha is dead and gone, but a lot of people don't understand that. Of course, in Mahayana the situation is different.

[BigWheelMan]

When you`re gone, you`re gone and that`s it.

Make the most of life because we only get one pop at it.

We continue on through our children and their descendants, a part of us remains with them, that`s why nature gave us the urge to breed, protect our kids and so hence our genes are passed on.

Sorry but there are no heavenly grazing grounds up there in blue yonder, make the most of things while you have the chance.

[Xangsamhua]

If you have a mind, you can attain nibbana in this life, and it's desirable because you get to cheat death and attain the Deathless.

Ven Buddhadasa said that the summary of all the Buddha's teaching is: "Nothing in this world is worth holding on to." I think that's the mental state one has to aim for to attain nibbana. With that attitude, you don't even bother thinking about what'll happen in future lives.

And, how, therefore, can nibbana be a "state" to aim for? I'm not debating here; this is a genuine query.

Thich Nhat Hanh again? If you look carefully at my post, I said not holding on to anything was the mental state to aim for if one wants a shot at nibbana.

I'm not sure where TNH comes into this. I do read his stuff, but the meditation teacher I was referring to was Kathleen McDonald (Ven. Sangye Khadro). Perhaps TNH says the same things; I'm not sure.

I did note your wording and wondered if the mental state you suggest is a condition for attaining nibbana (but not nibbana itself, which is "extinguishment"), and whether the elision from complete non-attachment to cessation is a seamless one, or whether total non-attachment = nibbana. If not, how does one move from total non-attachment to a state which is something more than that and requires a qualitative leap?

However, I don't want to split hairs or play word-games. Your postings below clarify things somewhat. In fact, fairly satisfactorily for the moment. As you say, nibbana can't be understood conceptually.

I'll keep up my studies. Thank you for your generous responses. I don't mind being taken to task when it's appropriate.

[camerata]

Ajahn Brahm has a good section on nibbana in plain English in Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond. But if you want the full roadmap to enlightenment you'll have to read the Visuddhimagga.

[Xangsamhua]

Ajahn Brahm has a good section on nibbana in plain English in Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond. But if you want the full roadmap to enlightenment you'll have to read the Visuddhimagga.

Thanks. I'll have a look in Kinikuniya, perhaps today. I see the Visuddhimagga is available from Amazon. Anywhere else?

[camerata]

You might be better off looking for the modern English version, Swallowing the River Ganges : A Practice Guide to the Path of Purification by Matthew Flickstein. But frankly I found it so geared towards advanced meditators that I never finished it.

[khaowong1]

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?

very good question. I sometimes think some of the people on this forum get too carried away with "if it's not in the Pali Canon", etc. etc.

[khaowong1]

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.

yes sir ree bob... that is a tough one to dispute.

[Xangsamhua]

Ajahn Brahm has a good section on nibbana in plain English in Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond. But if you want the full roadmap to enlightenment you'll have to read the Visuddhimagga.

Thanks. I'll have a look in Kinikuniya, perhaps today. I see the Visuddhimagga is available from Amazon. Anywhere else?

3 or 4 copies of the Ajahn Brahm book in Kinokuniya Emporium if anyone's interested. I've started on my copy.

No copies of the Visuddhimagga, I'm afraid.