That's a great question, Richard: for whom is one seeking enlightenment? I never met anyone who wasn't seeking enlightenment for him/herself. That's the absurdity that the Zen people tried to expose.
Nisargadatta Maharaj - a genuine realised master - always said that those who came to hear him would leave disappointed when they saw there was nothing in it for themselves. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: That's a great question, Richard: for whom is one seeking enlightenment? And I think it changes over time. Hopefully! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote: This is a very weak defense of your beliefs. As a Buddhist you should already know that the Buddha's rationale for teaching hinged on the fact that he became enlightened - and the nature of his enlightenment. According to the Buddha himself, at the moment he became enlightened he saw all his previous lives and all his future lives and the pain and suffering he had already endured for eons and the pain and suffering he was to endure in the future. And, he saw in one fell swoop all the suffering that all humans will endure, past and present and future. At that moment he realized the truth of suffering (samsara), action (karma) and rebirth (reincarnation) and how to end suffering following an Eightfold Path. The Buddha at that moment realized that everything happens for a reason; because of this, that occurs. Just like in a game of billiards depends on cause and effect and gravity sucks. It's not complicated. So, we know that causation rules the physical world, but is there a moral reciprocity as well? It's always best to err on the side of caution. That's why Buddhists are supposed to be compassionate and to do no harm. You left out the reason why you were seeking the spiritual life! Is it for you own gain or for the benefit of others? That's the real question. . And what was the On 11/13/2013 1:17 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > If you had a flashback that convinced you you were Jack the Ripper in a > previous life should you hand yourself in to the police? > Could you count on the statute of limitations getting you off the hook? > Could you claim in mitigation that you weren't yourself when you committed > the murders? I'm going to comment on this, and leave the musings below to others. No offense, but the above stuff is way funny, and creative, and that tickles my funny bone. But -- having kinda been there done that with this experience -- theorizing about it doesn't really float my boat. I'm like that with many of my most interesting spiritual experiences. I was there. I experienced these things, some of them that fall into the Blade Runner "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe" category. But I can't tell you definitively what they were. Heck, I'm still trying to figure many of them out myself. Maybe it's a Buddhist thang. They were never all that interested in the "why" things are happening, only in *that* they are happening, and how to make the best of that. I'm kinda drawn that way myself. > No one picked up on my alternative suggestion that memories of previous > lives could be explained not by any one individual going through a serial > succession of different life stories but rather could be explained as > someone accessing our common, racial memory. > By what mechanism? > 1) Occultists talk about "shells" of the dead left behind in the astral > realm. Really, though, the shells are used to explain what mediums access > when they contact the recently deceased. The shells dissipate over time so > wouldn't explain distant memories. > 2) Memories are passed on through our DNA by some unknown mechanism? (This > wouldn't work for Michael's recall of being a pious hermit in medieval > France - unless he had a relapse into sinful passions - monks don't have > kids.) Of course, the further back in time you peer the more common > ancestors we all have. > 3) All human (and non-human) life experiences are stored in the Akashic > Records. This looks the most promising line to take. > The advantage of this theory - that past-life memories are simply people > accessing the Akashic field - are: > (i) It explains why more than one person can claim to have memories of an > historical figure. > (ii) It fits better Buddhist ideas of anatta. > (iii) It explains why Cleopatra pops up so much; her "thumbprint" on the > Akashic field is bigger than most peoples. > > > > ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, > sharelong60@ wrote: > > fwiw, I figured we had all been in a previous life together and then a > healer mentioned that out of the blue about a month ago. My intuition says > Atlantis but I've not had any experiences to confirm. Hope we get it right > this time around (-: > > > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:47 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > wrote: > > > > Sounds like a dream while being awake. Any slippage into another time > > dimension makes it seem probable these dimensions exist simultaneously > > with the present. > > Personally, I suspect this is the case. That is, that all of these events > are happening simultaneously, and that something just occasionally enables > us to step from one pseudo-timestream to another. > > > I wonder what it is in our brains or in the frequency of the dimensions > > called "time" that causes a momentary ability to be able to see sine past > > event. And are you sure it is a former you that is participating or simply > > the current you who has slipped, temporarily, into another time frequency > > and can simply see what happened back then in that spot? > > Again, I cannot speak to anyone else's experience, or to theory or > hypotheticals. For me, this experience (whatever TF it was) always had a > strong sense of "I" being identified with the person whose eyes and ears I > was using to witness the scene. > > > Whatever the case or the reason it is something I would like to experience > > as long as it didn't freak me out too much or the event wasn't too > > violent. > > There have been the occasional violent flashback, but for some reason they > didn't really freak me out. Probably the most violent was in a basement room > of the Papal Palace in Avignon, realizing that I had not only been there > before but been tortured (probably to death) there. My "point of view" > within the room remained the same (standing in the same location against a > wall), but in the "here and now" I was just standing there with a few other > tourists, and in the "then and now" I was strapped to the wall and the other > people in the room (all in monk's robes) were doing fairly nasty things to > me. There was -- interestingly -- no real sensation of pain. What freaked me > out the most about the flashback was seeing the look in the eyes of the > people doing this, and realizing that they firmly believed they were doing > it for the Greater Glory of God. They were ECSTATIC, as if torturing a > heretic was GETTING THEM OFF. > > > > ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, > > turquoiseb@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > s3raphita wrote: > > > > > > I was going to say this: If I was to find myself suddenly in a > > past-life - let's say in Elizabethan London - I'd take careful note of > > what clothes the people around me wore, what food they ate, what the > > houses looked like, etc. and then when I returned I'd check against the > > best-available historical evidence. Here's the thing though: if you were > > to have a past-life recall can you alter what you're thinking or doing? > > If it's a far-memory of "you" in a previous life is the you that's "you > > in the 21st century having the recall" able to change anything? > > > > > > I cannot speak to hypothetical situations like yours. I can only say > > what it was like for me. > > > > For me it was *not* like lucid dreaming, which I have practiced and > > gotten good enough at that I could change things in the dream to suit > > myself. The flashes I've had were all short-lived -- thirty seconds to > > at most a couple of minutes -- during which I was completely immersed in > > the scene. I *did* seem to have some volition, in that I could decide to > > try to talk to someone, and pull that off, but it was not the "I'm in > > control of this vision" kinda thang one experiences with lucid dreaming. > > > > I never sought any of these flashes, nor am I interested in doing so > > now. They just happened, almost always when I was in the physical > > location where the original events took place. That's the part that's so > > much FUN about whatever it is. I'm in the same room of a castle, or in > > the courtyard of a large city like Carcassonne, and one moment I'm "here > > and now" and the next I'm "here and then." > > > > The overall scene doesn't change, just the details -- like what people > > are wearing, eating, etc. I guess I could have been more Sherlock > > Holmes-y about it, but frankly each time it's happened it's come as such > > a surprise and been so thoroughly entertaining that I just allowed > > myself to be entertained. > > >
