Reincarnation before death?
This is supposed to be an interview with the HH the Dalai Lama on reincarnation. Anyone have any idea how reincarnation or rebirth can take place before the death of the person?
//Some traditions of Tibetan Buddhism suggest that a boy born before the death of a high lama could actually be his reincarnation. Do you believe that the 15th Dalai Lama could already be alive today?//
It is possible. At least two modern lamas before their death said, "This boy who already is alive is my reincarnation." If it fits, after some investigation, then it is possible
i wouldn't trust those crooked lamas...................
Originally posted by Aik TC:
Reincarnation before death?
This is supposed to be an interview with the HH the Dalai Lama on reincarnation. Anyone have any idea how reincarnation or rebirth can take place before the death of the person?
//Some traditions of Tibetan Buddhism suggest that a boy born before the death of a high lama could actually be his reincarnation. Do you believe that the 15th Dalai Lama could already be alive today?//
It is possible. At least two modern lamas before their death said, "This boy who already is alive is my reincarnation." If it fits, after some investigation, then it is possible
Looks like lamas don't die, they get reincarnated. It is hard for them to leave this world, ha? Attachment to existence?
Bodhisatta - by K.Sri Dhammananda
A Bodhisatta is a being devoted to Enlightenment.
As a 'Compassionate Being', a Bodhisatta is destined to attain Buddhahood, and become a future Buddha, through the cultivation of his mind.
In order to gain Supreme Enlightenment, he practices transcendental virtues(Parami) to perfection. The virtues are generosity, morality, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, truthfulness, determination, loving-kindness, and even mindedness. He cultivates these Parami with compassion and wisdom, without being influenced by selfish motives or selfconceit. He works for the welfare and happiness of all beings, seeking to lessen the suffering of others throughout the series of his countless lives. In his journey to perfection, he is prepared to practice these virtues, sometimes even at the expense of his own life.
In the Pali scriptures, the designation 'Bodhisatta' is given to Prince Siddhartha before His Enlightenment and to His former lives. The Buddha Himself used this term when speaking of His life prior to Enlightenment. According to the Pali texts there is no mention of Buddha Bodhi being the only way to attain the final goal of Nibbanic bliss. It was very rare for a disciple during the Buddha's time to forgo the opportunity to attain sainthood and instead declare bodhisattahood as his aspiration. However, there are some records that some followers of the Buddha did aspire to become Bodhisattas to gain 'Buddhahood'.
http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/21.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18542915/The-Bodhisatta-Concept-in-Theravada-Buddhism
/\
in the PL tradition, praxis were also reborn alive to PL, but the remaining body should be "dead" without any consciousness. so some body are left behind, even when there's No critical illness to the body at all.
/\
I am quite amazed but not surprised by this "In order to gain Supreme Enlightenment, he practices transcendental virtues (Parami) to perfection."
What is supreme enlightenment? It connotes there are different levels of attainment. Someone mentioned something like PhD or to this effect.
Indeed, to be a bodhisattva and ultimatley to become a Buddha is an aspiration (ambition), no different from 'grasping', no matter how altruistic the aim is.
think so is to 'grasp' on no attachement at such. :)
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Looks like lamas don't die, they get reincarnated. It is hard for them to leave this world, ha? Attachment to existence?
Actually, like I said, all traditions of Buddhism teach rebirth. It is not peculiar to lamas or Vajrayana.
//Indeed, to be a bodhisattva and ultimatley to become a Buddha is an aspiration (ambition), no different from 'grasping', no matter how altruistic the aim is.//
The ideal of Bodhisattvaship is compassion. Their coming back into this world is not about ‘grasping for existence’, far from it. They come back to this world not because there is any notion of ‘self’ to grasped for, it is more for the sacrifice they are prepared to make for the betterment of others. Mother Teresa is a good example of the ideal of the Bodhisattvaship in Buddhist term. If she have come into this world with the intention of 'grasping for her own existence’, would she have gone into the gutters of Calcutta bringing back the diseased and dying not caring what infection it could have brought upon herself so that they could die with some human dignity?
You do not ‘grasp for existence’ if you are prepared to ‘sacrifice yourself for other’. It is either one or the other. In the case of a Bodhisattva, it is the other.
Originally posted by Aik TC:
//Indeed, to be a bodhisattva and ultimatley to become a Buddha is an aspiration (ambition), no different from 'grasping', no matter how altruistic the aim is.//
The ideal of Bodhisattvaship is compassion. Their coming back into this world is not about ‘grasping for existence’, far from it. They come back to this world not because there is any notion of ‘self’ to grasped for, it is more for the sacrifice they are prepared to make for the betterment of others. Mother Teresa is a good example of the ideal of the Bodhisattvaship in Buddhist term. If she have come into this world with the intention of 'grasping for her own existence’, would she have gone into the gutters of Calcutta bringing back the diseased and dying not caring what infection it could have brought upon herself so that they could die with some human dignity?
You do not ‘grasp for existence’ if you are prepared to ‘sacrifice yourself for other’. It is either one or the other. In the case of a Bodhisattva, it is the other.
Mother Teresa was an outstanding human being who dedicated her life to charity. There are also many people who dedicated their lives for the good of mankind. The Catholic Church had canonised Mother Teresa, making her a saint. I wrote before that Buddhist bodhisattva is like Catholic saint, and I am heartened you are in syn with me. I have no idea what Mother Teresa as a saint is doing!
I have no issue with altruistic aims - the betterment of human lives, to reduce or eliminate "life sucks".
However, the issue is bodhisattva - a human who entered parinirvarna, come back (I don't what) and is able to reside in SE Asia, to save the rest of mankind, not for his selfish existence. I can see a similarity - Jesus Christ was like that but not in exact manner. It does not matter, the ultimate aim was a 'sacrifice' to save the world. All these sound very noble. The Christian path to salvation is to believe in Christ as the saviour. The Buddhist path to liberation is to believe in bodhisattva!
Bodhisattva cannot take on the sins of others and deliver them to heaven by will. We don't believe in such things.
He can only teach and advice... just like Buddha, just like arhats.
Therefore it is not savior in the Christian sense... but a teacher? Certainly.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Bodhisattva cannot take on the sins of others and deliver them to heaven by will. We don't believe in such things.
He can only teach and advice... just like Buddha, just like arhats.
Therefore it is not savior in the Christian sense... but a teacher? Certainly.
I said there is similarity but not exact manner. The idea of 'selfless sacrifice' to 'save' the world whether from sins or from sufferings is similar. So, it does not matter whether you call teacher, facilitator, helper or saviour.
------------------------------
Oh yeah sure there are similarities. Jesus teaches don't kill, don't steal. Buddha teaches don't kill, don't still. Ah there I see it now! Jesus must be Buddha!
Better still.
Christ died nailed to a cross.
Crosses are made of wood.
Wood comes from trees.
Buddha sat under a tree.
Buddha was enlightened.
Therefore, Christ was a Buddha.
p.s. whoever said that the path to liberation is to 'believe in bodhisattva'? I never said that, I'm sure Aik TC never said that. I have already said how bodhisattva cannot deliver people but only guide them.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Oh yeah sure there are similarities. Jesus teaches don't kill, don't steal. Buddha teaches don't kill, don't still. Ah there I see it now! Jesus must be Buddha!
Better still.
Christ died nailed to a cross.
Crosses are made of wood.
Wood comes from trees.
Buddha sat under a tree.
Buddha was enlightened.
Therefore, Christ was a Buddha.
p.s. whoever said that the path to liberation is to 'believe in bodhisattva'? I never said that, I'm sure Aik TC never said that. I have already said how bodhisattva cannot deliver people but only guide them.
Your 'better still' don't make any sense. Just a form of gratification for you. If that is how you use logic, than I can understand why the Buddha was not in favour of encouraging people to use logic!
The guide to liberation was already given - the Middle Way. If bodhisattva is not to be believe, then how is one to accept the bodhisattva ideal?
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Your 'better still' don't make any sense. Just a form of gratification for you. If that is how you use logic, than I can understand why the Buddha was not in favour of encouraging people to use logic!
The guide to liberation was already given - the Middle Way. If bodhisattva is not to be believe, then how is one to accept the bodhisattva ideal?
My post is obviously trying to point out the fallacy of your logic that just because two things sounds similar means they are. If you don't see it, then nevermind.
Bodhisattva is not just to be believed just as Buddha is not just to be believed. You have to put the path into practice.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:My post is obviously trying to point out the fallacy of your logic that just because two things sounds similar means they are. If you don't see it, then nevermind.
Bodhisattva is not just to be believed just as Buddha is not just to be believed. You have to put the path into practice.
Your 'better still' is absurd. It does not disprove any fallacy. Similar is just the opposite of contrast, and it does not mean exact, and I have qualified 'similarity'. You have fallen into your own logic on fallacy.
I said the guide to liberation was already given, so where does bodhisattva ideal fit in?
You double posted.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You double posted.
where?
Sorry misread.
"I said the guide to liberation was already given, so where does bodhisattva ideal fit in?"
I think you don't understand the bodhisattva ideal. The bodhisattva ideal is not just to attain liberation for oneself, it is to attain full Buddhahood in order to liberate all others. That is where bodhisattva ideal comes in.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Sorry misread.
"I said the guide to liberation was already given, so where does bodhisattva ideal fit in?"
I think you don't understand the bodhisattva ideal. The bodhisattva ideal is not just to attain liberation for oneself, it is to attain full Buddhahood in order to liberate all others. That is where bodhisattva ideal comes in.
"....in order to liberate all others." - that is what I meant by similarity with the 'saviour' ideal in Christianity.
------------------
Yeah and I am saying that is merely surface understanding. You are not understanding the implication of the words.
Firstly, Jesus wants to save others to go heaven. Buddhists want to guide people to liberate from sufferings and attain nirvana, which is not at all the same as mundane rebirth in heaven. 'Liberate all others' means liberate them into nirvana, therefore it is different from Christianity's salvation into heaven.
Secondly, Christianity thinks belief in Jesus suffice. Buddhists do not believe in this, we do not believe in salvation through a person or through mere belief. A Buddha or bodhisattva can only guide, that's all. He cannot take away people's sins or grant enlightenment to others or control a person's rebirth by changing their karma or anything like that. He can only advice and teach.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yeah and I am saying that is merely surface understanding. You are not understanding the implication of the words.
Firstly, Jesus wants to save others to go heaven. Buddhists want to guide people to liberate from sufferings and attain nirvana, which is not at all the same as mundane rebirth in heaven. 'Liberate all others' means liberate them into nirvana, therefore it is different from Christianity's salvation into heaven.
Secondly, Christianity thinks belief in Jesus suffice. Buddhists do not believe in this, we do not believe in salvation through a person or through mere belief. A Buddha or bodhisattva can only guide, that's all. He cannot take away people's sins or grant enlightenment to others or control a person's rebirth by changing their karma or anything like that. He can only advice and teach.
I know very well the Christian concept of salvation and the Buddhist concept of liberation. Therefore, I know the difference between salvation and liberation. While I used 'similarity' I qualified by saying they are not exact. To me, both have goals and what Jesus did and what bodhisattvas do are directed towards its goal, regardless of whether one is thru belief and the other is thru guidance.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Mother Teresa was an outstanding human being who dedicated her life to charity. There are also many people who dedicated their lives for the good of mankind. The Catholic Church had canonised Mother Teresa, making her a saint. I wrote before that Buddhist bodhisattva is like Catholic saint, and I am heartened you are in syn with me. I have no idea what Mother Teresa as a saint is doing!
I have no issue with altruistic aims - the betterment of human lives, to reduce or eliminate "life sucks".
However, the issue is bodhisattva - a human who entered parinirvarna, come back (I don't what) and is able to reside in SE Asia, to save the rest of mankind, not for his selfish existence. I can see a similarity - Jesus Christ was like that but not in exact manner. It does not matter, the ultimate aim was a 'sacrifice' to save the world. All these sound very noble. The Christian path to salvation is to believe in Christ as the saviour. The Buddhist path to liberation is to believe in bodhisattva!
You seems to lay great emphasis that Mother Teresa and in one of your other post, that Prince Siddhartha are just Human Beings. I believe in your opinion, the same would also apply to the like of Jesus Christ and the Prophet Muhammad? Yes, we all start out and end our existence in this world with an outer appearance of a human being. But really, other than outer appearance, are we all ‘humans’ when we passed on from this world? Why do some get labeled as Saints, Arhats, Bodhisattva, Buddha and even Son of God? It is because during their live on earth they have raised themselves way beyond the scope, consciousness and capability of what one would normally associate what normal humans, where their words and their deeds would not just affect the lives of the people of their generation but also generations and generations after that. That’s why we do not called or look upon such personalities as mere human beings anymore after what they have done for the human race. The labels are also a sign of respect and veneration we have for them.