PeterC wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:50 am
It’s an extremely common request from early students to lamas - everyone wants some exciting story about how they were a king in Oddiyana or a Deva or something
They may think that is what they want to hear, but the truth would touch them more and feel more meaningful. The life of a serf is so much more than that. They had their families and people they cared about. Their joys, their sorrows, their faith. Tragedies and spiritual victories. All the depth and complexity of a human life. In fact, my impression from what I've observed is that people who have had real past life regressions (in contrast to mere fantasies) do not generally find the experience any less moving and profound just because they remember having been an "ordinary" person. Indeed, a real past life regression evoking the memories of an "ordinary" life (and many people have done that) will be far more powerful than a false fantasy of having been something exceptional, in terms of awakening deep emotions, insight and understanding etc. And I think what many people really want is that. It can truly be one of the most helpful tools to know ourselves.
PeterC wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:50 am
but every time I’ve heard someone make it, which is many times, the lama asked has always been categorical in saying this isn’t a useful thing to chase after.
Regarding the statistical probability of having been an insect: Not really. An insect can never be the cause of a human birth. How would an insect produce the karma, the merits or the realizations required to be born as a human being? It just doesn't happen. Beings are not reborn randomly, but according to precise causes and conditions. There's a far greater statistical probability of having been a Deva or a king of Oddiyana in recent lives than an insect; in the case of the Deva because its consciousness is advanced enough to be able to access the human state, unlike the insect. It isn't that hard to find someone with a Deva background (I know about some myself – but to be honest rather low-ranking ones, less than insects in the Reality), especially not in circles of serious spiritual seekers, but I'd be very interested in seeing your insect-men, for I don't know about any. Nevertheless, past lives as various other kinds of non-human beings ("aliens" if you will) above the animal-level ('above' insofar as having the faculties of reason and speech, for example, and thus more freedom of will) is probably more common than the Deva connection. That's still very interesting.
PeterC wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:50 am
Past life regression is generally a hoax. Statistically the odds are that you were a serf or an insect. But I guess people wouldn’t pay money for that sort of story.
Let's face it: Some of these gurus dismiss it thus simply because they don't have the power of easily awakening such memories in people, nor do they have the clairvoyance siddhis of effortlessly seeing into other people's past and telling them something useful about it either, and they don't want to admit they aren't able to because it exposes the rather low limit of their realization. For those who actually have that realization and power, however, it can serve as a highly effective
upaya when teaching people in a way tailored to them personally, lessons they will never forget, by touching directly on something deeply personal which they need to remember -- whether they want it or fear it. A Dharma teaching involving the context of a fateful past life incident of great importance to the being will certainly make a far deeper impression than some standard teaching which anyone can learn to deliver on rote. It would help to awaken deeper consciousness, memory, knowledge. So for someone having the power, this is more skillful than the mere dismissal of those cases you referred to. It's how I would have responded and used it if I were a teacher and able to: not for the entertainment value, but in a way which is actually helpful.
The Tathagata surely didn't say that knowledge of past lives should be dismissed as unimportant and not to be concerned with. A quick glance at some of the earliest texts recording the words of the historical Buddha Shakyamuni should suffice to settle that question once and for all. He repeatedly emphasized the review and knowledge of his past lives as having served a major role in the process of his awakening and enlightenment. From Sujato's translation of the
Majjhima Nikaya, for example (his rendering isn't my favourite, but it's the text I had at hand now):
"When my mind had become immersed in samādhi like this — purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable — I extended it toward recollection of past lives. I recollected many kinds of past lives. That is: one, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand rebirths; many eons of the world contracting, many eons of the world expanding, many eons of the world contracting and expanding. I remembered: ‘There, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else. There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn here.’ And so I recollected my many kinds of past lives, with features and details. This was the first knowledge, which I achieved in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed and knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed and light arose, as happens for a meditator who is diligent, keen, and resolute."
(At various instances throughout the text he repeats a similar formula applying to others who follow his path, too.)
As you see, the Bhagavan must have placed a lot of weight on the value of this knowledge for the awakening, as he didn't stop at remembering just a few past lives, or even a thousand. We also know that Buddha often used to mention various past life incidents and connections relevant to the people he conversed with. That's because he had the power of clairvoyant insight to do so effortlessly, and obviously considered it useful or helpful to mention in many cases. That really says it all. No contemporary Buddhist guru can know better than Shakyamuni.
By letting me know the textual origins of the two terminologies, really clear up my confusion.
