Message Boards Message Boards

Magick and The Powers

The Buddha was a shaman

Toggle
The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/13/15 2:35 AM
First, an exoteric explanation for those who care about authenticity (if you're not into such matters then please skip to the questions at the end):
I found this sutta where the Buddha explains how communication with Devas/lesser gods/angels/spirits was an important part of his path to enlightenment. He says he was actuallt purifying his mind through talking to spirits.

https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.64

Suddenly all of the suttas where the Buddha talks about conversation with devas as a spiritual power make sense together with the claim that "I teach only suffering and the end of suffering". Also this could explain the workings of the western mystical concepts of the Holy Guardian Angel and canonically justifies my recent dablings in ceremonial magick emoticon

Now, the esoteric questions: 
•How would you use spirit communication to gain insight and purify the mind?
•What importance has the powers in general and spirit communication in particular had on your spiritual path? 

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/13/15 8:56 AM as a reply to Pål.
The label 'shaman' is misrepresenting or slandering the Tathagata. The suttas state:
Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata. AN 2.23
What happens in the sutta is Gotama, while not yet a Buddha, was meditating & developing the 'divine eye' (ñāṇadassanaṃknowing & seeing), which is a psychic power. With the divine eye, Gotama perceived naturally (without volition) external forms and then 'deities'. 'Deities' are also beings with physic powers. Yet Gotama was not infatuated with that experience, thus did not converse with the deities. Then, after conversing with those deities, Gotama remained uninfatuated &, with the divine eye, examined the nutriment & karma-vipaka of those deities. 

Therefore, he was not purify his mind through talking to spirits. He was purifying his mind by not being infatuated or overawed with the experiences of the divine eye and particularly was purifying his mind by examining the nutriment & karmic results of the deities and realising the deity realm or evolution was not enlightenment, not nibbana & not liberation.

Thus, his mind was developed, purified & awakened by having no fear, no awe & no infatuation towards deities & the deva/divine eye (mental) realm, by being completely free in his interactions with deities, yet by moving on to a higher & greater path.

emoticon
 


RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/13/15 9:04 AM as a reply to Pål.
I don't have answers for your questions at this time but I do notice something interesting. This seems in some ways similar to elements of the Tantric Shamanism of Central Asian Buddhism, with the difference that for Vajrayana practitioners there is an emphasis on connecting with *awakened* deities and entities. When you look at Tibetan iconography for instance, those deities with a third eye are supposed to be awakened whereas those lacking this mark are more like worldly entities which may or may not be sympathetic to the dharma. The Buddha's description sounds different. He seems to be describing an increasing facility for connecting more and more completely with these entities, but it seems like the point may be to perceive the limits of those ways of being (i.e., he is perceiving in greater and greater clarity the scope of those entities, their beginning and end, their karma, their suffering)

EDIT: cross-posted with Nicky's post. His explanation makes a lot of sense to me, probably because it is a more orthodox way of articulating my intuition.

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/13/15 10:04 AM as a reply to Nicky.
You seem to be adding a lot to the sutta. Shaman, as far as I know means someone who converses woth spirits. The sutta describes how the Buddha progressed towards liberation through (with the divine eye) increasing his insight into the nature of spirits. One step of that progression was talking to the spirits he perceived. 

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/13/15 10:08 AM as a reply to . Jake ..
Yes but it's still a practice of shamanism, right? Then later on in the suttas the Buddha teaches gods. Some probably got enlightened which should enable the vajrayana practices you mentioned. 

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/13/15 3:52 PM as a reply to Pål.
Sure Pal, why not? Although in the Vajrayana cosmology, there were buddha deities before Shakyamuni... not tooooo controversial, since isn't the orthodox view that there have been buddhas before Shakyamuni? Anyhow, sure, why not! In fact I know of some shamanic traditions that appear to have awakening-oriented teachings completely outside of buddhism... but yeah, have fun with Magick! 

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/14/15 2:21 AM as a reply to . Jake ..
Thanks! Hope evocation will partly purify my mind like it apperently did for Gotama if we are to believe the sutta emoticon

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/14/15 6:06 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
You seem to be adding a lot to the sutta. Shaman, as far as I know means someone who converses woth spirits. The sutta describes how the Buddha progressed towards liberation through (with the divine eye) increasing his insight into the nature of spirits. One step of that progression was talking to the spirits he perceived. 

I am not adding anything. A shaman appeals to spirits for help in subserviance. In other words, the spirits are superior to the shaman & the shaman relies on the power of the spirits. This is not the case with the Lord Buddha, who said:

In this world with its devas, Maras & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans and contemplatives, its royalty and common-folk, I do not see another...more consummate in knowledge and vision of release than I, on whom I could dwell in dependence, honoring & respecting him.

Garava Sutta: Reverence


 emoticon

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/14/15 6:15 AM as a reply to . Jake ..
. Jake .:
....the difference that for Vajrayana practitioners there is an emphasis on connecting with *awakened* deities and entities...The Buddha's description sounds different...it seems like the point may be to perceive the limits of those ways of being (i.e., he is perceiving in greater and greater clarity the scope of those entities, their beginning and end, their karma, their suffering)



Your explanation made complete sense to me also. 

Pal's attitude is similar to Vajrayana practitioners connecting in subserviance with awakened deities & entities. 

Where as Gotama was perceiving the limits (and unsatisfactoriness) of the deities. 

I read your post yesterday & regarded your explanation as complete. emoticon

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/14/15 2:10 PM as a reply to Nicky.
If that deffinition of shamanism is correct, then you're right, the Buddha, not even according to that sutta, wasn't a shaman. But it's worth considering that practitioners in the western Magickal traditions, which are inspired by and had inspired many modern shamanic (I think?) traditions, such as Vodou and Santeria, start with the perspective you mention; dependency on the spirit realm. Then, through progress within an initiatory spiritual system, the practitioner TRANCENDS the spirits/gods/devas and stand above their power. A very similiar process to the one described in the sutta above! Even more so when you tale in account that the Buddha probably grew up in a society where people in general viewed them selves as dependent on the spirit realm. In that case, Gotama probably started with such a point of view, so his first steps of perceiving and talking to spirits could be viewed as shamanic, but as he got more in touch with the spirit realm through the further developement of his divine eye, he trancended this view, just like a theurgic right hand path magickian does. Thus shamanism can, from a suttaic perspective, be a legit spiritual system, if one goes beyond it when it has served the purpose of developing enough clairvoyance, and doesn't get stuck in it. And the way I read the suttas, clairvpyance is an iddhi that, if developed and pursued, can be used to lead one to awakening emoticon right?

Now, what, if any (just curious!), are your experiences with the powers as an insight tool? 

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/14/15 11:34 PM as a reply to Pål.
Yeah I've thought about that before, I think the way the Buddha and his immediate disciples spoke to these devas were by way of having "religious experiences". For example, by conversing with these hidden or elementary parts of their consciousness, which manifested in lieu of the culture they lived in at the time (India, which was full of rebirth, karma, and moksha doctrines), they were essentially magicians, as you said.

It's further backed up by the fact that very few people corobborate speaking to the deities (devaputta Mara, Baka Brahma, Sakka, the Alavaka Yakkha, Sanankumara Brahma, Pancasikha) that the Buddha and his immediate disciples spoke to, what they were experiencing was religious discourse or "conversation" (KCHGA anyone?), and so by having these conversations, the Buddha would hash out his wisdom, as is the case with his constant dealings with "Mara", a personification of death, which he overcame (apparently), but seemed to talk to for the rest of his life.

Basically, contemplative consciousness and altered states of consciousness, are just subjective and poetic ways of discussing with oneself, whether or not the deities actually exist doesn't matter, because "the truth is in experience", or, the experience was and is authentic, genuine, sincere, etc.

Kind of funny huh?

The Buddha and his immediate dispensation seemed to be a pocket of historical, powerful, magicians who were conversing with deities and entities in an altered state of consciousness, after which the "Tathagata", passed into parinbbana.[2]

Cheers.

1. It occasionally appears like the content of the experience doesn't matter, but that the truth of the experience matters. But it's difficult to experience truth or consciousness without a surrounding framework or container, which gives us a lens to view it through. I think Ken Wilber talks about how religious people might interpret their experiences in light of their religion (and take those experiences to imply different things), but a. Wilber is always searching for an absolute framework, and b. there doesn't seem to be any form of "religious consciousness" (stolen from Duncan Barford's article on "Open Enlightenment" a long time ago, he references Nishida Kitaro) or "religious experience", without a framework that gives rise to it, or gives meaning to it, a container, so to speak

Even Richard, understands his current condition and experiences in light of his belief that the universe peerless (perfect), eternal (temporally), and infinite (spatially)

2. The truth is in experience, the experience of the "Tathagata", was that what he "knew" and "saw" was genuine (this is my speculation), but that the experience was what he spoke to, I suppose this is why he didn't talk about what would happen after his physical death, perhaps the "deathlessness" he experienced was an immediate, and eternal now, immediate as in striking you full in the face, and a sort of immensity that made it difficult to think of in terms of time, this is where the "subitism" debate comes in, but since awakening seems to be an experience of the "timeless", the "timeless" is experienced

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/15/15 3:59 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
 And the way I read the suttas, clairvpyance is an iddhi that, if developed and pursued, can be used to lead one to awakening emoticon right?



The most lucid of all arahants, Sariputta, did not have clairvoyance or any psychic powers. The suttas state it is wisdom (panna) that leads to awakening.

emoticon 

Then, having known thus, having seen thus, do you wield manifold supranormal powers? Having been one you become many; having been many you become one? You appear? You vanish? You go unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space? You dive in & out of the earth as if it were water? You walk on water without sinking as if it were dry land? Sitting crosslegged you fly through the air like a winged bird? With your hand you touch and stroke even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful? You exercise influence with your body even as far as the Brahma worlds?" 

No, friend.''

Then, having known thus, having seen thus, do you hear — by means of the divine ear-element, purified & surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine & human, whether near or far?

No, friend

We're released through discernment (panna) , friend Susima.

Susima Sutta






RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/15/15 4:07 AM as a reply to Distant Admirer.
Distant Admirer:
....by conversing with these hidden or elementary parts of their consciousness....his constant dealings with "Mara", a personification of death, which he overcame (apparently), but seemed to talk to for the rest of his life....contemplative consciousness and altered states of consciousness, are just subjective and poetic ways of discussing with oneself...


This contradicts the Buddha-Dhamma becaue it implies the Buddha did not end the defilements of this mind.

emoticon

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/15/15 10:22 AM as a reply to Distant Admirer.
When I first read that sutta I went "WOW THE BUDDHA DID KCHGA" but then I rethought it. Gotama seems to be discovering the 3C:s of the spirit realm by himself, without guidamce. If he got any guidamce, he abandons it at the point where he already can speak with devas. The HGA (holy guardian angel) guides you through the process of trancending the plametary forces and the demiurge (in buddhist terms: trancending ignorance) but is it built in to the system to see the 3C:s of the HGA/Outward projection of the Higher Self? If not, then isn't the system quite limited and we have to use buddhism to go further once the Abyss is crossed? I don't know, haven't met my HGA yet. And I've never really understood the No-Self vs True self passage in MCTB either, will have to practice more. But I know of people who have done KCHGA and Vipassana simultaneously. 

@Nicky
well, that's not a counter argument emoticon
in numerous suttas, such as the one linked to above and the Mahasaccaka sutta, the Buddha says he attained enlightenment through, when developed in Jhana, using his clairvoyance/divine eye to gain insight into the workings of karma and rebirth, after which he could see the 4 noble truths clearly.  But of course, not all of the Buddha's disciples used iddhis to awaken. 

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/15/15 10:06 PM as a reply to Pål.
I don't think an Abyss is ever crossed, that makes it seem like there is a definitive event called enlightenment, as if there is a "post-awakening", I don't get that sense, enlightenment seems like a conversation, a knowledge and conversation, like a divine discourse, that occurs for the rest of the one's life, I think that's why much of the Buddha's wisdom is hashed out in conversations or serendipitous events that allow him to make apt statemements, without those there would be no occasion for his wisdom to arise

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/16/15 1:25 AM as a reply to Distant Admirer.
Where does the HGA lead one then? What is it? 

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/16/15 3:51 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pål
in numerous suttas, such as the one linked to above and the Mahasaccaka sutta, the Buddha says he attained enlightenment through, when developed in Jhana, using his clairvoyance/divine eye to gain insight into the workings of karma and rebirth, after which he could see the 4 noble truths clearly.  But of course, not all of the Buddha's disciples used iddhis to awaken. 

The insight into karma is unrelated to the 4 noble truths. Your correlation here is erroneous. The 1st and 2nd knowledges were unrelated to psychic power, as stated in the suttas, given those 1st and 3rd knowledges are based on internal insights. The 2nd knowledge requires the divine eye because it is external insight into the minds of other beings: emoticon

When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past dwellings (lit: 'past homes'; pubbenivāsaṃ).....This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night...

When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing....This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the night...

When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it had come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress...This was the third knowledge I attained in the third watch of the night...

Dvedhavitakka Sutta: Two Sorts of Thinking

In case you do not know what 'past dwellings' (pubbe nivesa) means (erroneously believing it means 'past lives'), some supramundane suttas. emoticon

Monks, any brahmans or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past dwellings (pubbenivāsaṃ) all recollect the five clung-to-aggregates, or one among them. Which five? When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness.

Any form...feeling...perception...mental fabrications...consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.

Khajjaniya Sutta: Chewed Up

The property of form, householder, is the home of consciousness. When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of form, it is said to be living at home. The property of feeling... perception... fabrication is the home of consciousness. When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of fabrication, it is said to be dwelling at home.

And how does one not live at home? Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of mind, adherences or obsessions (adhiṭṭhānābhinivesānusayā) with regard to the property of form...feeling... perception... fabrication...consciousness: these the Tathagata has abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Therefore the Tathagata is said to be not dwelling at home.

Haliddakani Sutta: To Haliddakani

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/16/15 12:40 PM as a reply to Nicky.
Wait, are you saying that according to these suttas past dwellings can't be past lives? Where are they saying this? 

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/16/15 3:12 PM as a reply to Pål.
Ok, so, by way of metaphor:

I have a friend that often has dreams, wherein he'll meet certain characters in his dream, and these characters will foreshadow events that happen later in the dream, so an example would be (this is the example he gave me):

Phase 1 of dream: He's talking to a girl he knows, the girl says: "There's this really creepy guy that's been stalking me, he seems like a serial killer"

*dream logic occurs and the dream segues*

Phase 2 of dream: He's talking to his mom, she says: "You know Fred, sometimes when you're afraid, it's ok to just run, just run"

*dream logic segue*

Phase 3: Creepy guy is following him, he gets afraid, he starts running, he wakes up

What I'm trying to illustrate here is that the HGA seems to be a mechanism by which WE HIDE THINGS FROM OURSELVES...

In a certain sense we already know everything, and the HGA could be the us that already knows everything (I think some people say it's the enlightened magician in the future), but it appears as if we are hiding information from ourselves, in order to effect a certain outcome

You could think of it as like a large sleeping, hibernating bear, something keeps itching the bear, or part of the bear keeps trying to wake up, but the more energy the bear puts into trying to go back to sleep, the more aroused it gets, and the more awake it becomes

In other words, we are waking up to ourselves, ourselves in the future, are pulling us into the state of finality

So while it appears like we learn things, and discover things, in reality we are discovering things we already know

Time is frozen, but it appears like things happen

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/16/15 5:53 PM as a reply to Pål.
Pål
Wait, are you saying that according to these suttas past dwellings can't be past lives? Where are they saying this? 

'Pubbe nivesa' does not mean 'past lives' nor does 'jati' (primarily) mean 'physical birth'.

The suttas I posted literally state contemplating 'past dwellings' means when the mind thinks back: "I was  this in the past". It is contemplating each past birth of egoism.

If this meant contemplating past lives (which the language does not denote) then it would exclude past ego-births.  

If it excludes egoism then it is unrelated to Buddhism since the whole point of Buddhism is to comprehend & uproot the process of egoism or "I-making" & "my-making". 

The word 'jati' in India, even today, has always meant social or self-identity. emoticon

~~Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born generation and spontaneous generation. MN 12

~~Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is the term used to denote the thousands of clans, tribes, communities and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or linguistic groupings may define some jatis. Wikipedia

~~Now this word jati has many meanings. For in the passage 'he recollects one birth, two births, etc', it is becoming. In the passage 'Visakha, there is a kind (jati) of ascetics called Niganthas (Jains)', it is monastic order. In the passage 'birth is includes in two aggregates', it is whatever is formed. In the passage 'his birth is due to the first consciousness in the mother's womb' (Vin.i,93), it is rebirth-linking. In the passage 'as soon as he was born (sampatijata), the Bodhisattva' (M.iii,123) it is parturition. In the passage 'one who is not rejected and despised on the account of birth', it is clan. In the passage 'sister, since i was born with noble birth', it is the Noble One's virtue. Visuddhimagga

~~Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, 'Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.' MN 86

~~The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One. MN 44

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/17/15 6:01 AM as a reply to Nicky.
But this could very well include past lives. When we'we already started sutta bashing, take a look at this please emoticon

Mata Sutta: Mother
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/17/15 6:14 AM as a reply to Distant Admirer.
Then what the sutta describes is probably not KCHGA I guess.

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/17/15 8:09 PM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
But this could very well include past lives. When we'we already started sutta bashing, take a look at this please emoticon

Mata Sutta: Mother
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

Wow! Your mind is certainly caught up in the personality view of a puthujjana, which is also the personality view of Mara. Like you, Mara believes that a mind-body organism is a "being", as follows:
Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to make Vajira her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:

By whom has this being been created?
Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen?
Where does the being cease?

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him:


Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases

SN 5.10

For Buddhas or elightened minds, 'beings' are mental states or thoughts born from delusion, created from craving-becoming, as follows:
A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?

Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up
  
there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being'.

SN 23.2


The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.

MN 44


For Buddhas, belief in meta-physical beings & mothers & fathers for the purposes of developing morality is tainted/defiled right view:
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other worlds. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously born beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the others after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions. MN 117

If you cannot read Pali or do not understand the liguistics used by Buddhas, how do you know the above translation of the Mata Sutta and your materialistic egoistic interpretaton of it is authentic & accurate? 

As the Lord Buddha unambiguously explained all things without exception are 'not-self', why would the Lord also literally say all beings were once 'your mother', 'your father', 'your son', etc? Obviously there is a flaw in the transmission & translation of the Mata Sutta and the other suttas contained in that chapter of the SN. Are you sure the personal pronoun 'your' actually exists in the Pali? 

Most importantly, since the Mata Sutta has resulted in your displaying passion/enchantment towards your erroneous idea of "reincarnation" rather than dispassion/disenchantment, your reading of the sutta is certainly incorrect. This is because the sutta ends with the statement that (if the sutta is comprehended) disenchantment with all fabricated things & release will occur. It follows your interpretation is certainly incorrect. 

For example, if all beings were actually formerly your mother, your father, your son, your daughter, you would love them & hug them. You would run around the streets hugging & celebrating with every being you saw & met. However, the sutta states you should feel disenchantment towards all 'beings'. This illogical nature of the sutta shows its transmission & translation is flawed or otherwise fake.

In short, the suttas in general point out your wrong view of "I was in the past" and "I crave to be in the future": emoticon

This is how is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound? MN 2

RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/17/15 8:11 PM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
Thanks! Hope evocation will partly purify my mind like it apperently did for Gotama if we are to believe the sutta emoticon

The sutta states Gotama 1st developed the divine-eye and then saw the deities. Divine-eye opens up from silence & samadhi rather than from 'evocation'. 

The Lord Buddha taught the mind is purifying via abandoning 'self-view'. Where as the idea of 'my mind' is self-view. 

In other words, it is not possible to 'purify my mind' since the 'my' is an impurity. What is purified is 'the mind'. emoticon

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind

Pabhassara Sutta


RE: The Buddha was a shaman
Answer
7/19/15 2:06 AM as a reply to Nicky.
Samadhi and silence is an important component in evocation to visible form. But your right, the Buddha probably didn't do traditional evocation. Since we're on the magick forums: Have you tried evocation? 

So now it's about lingustics... Whatever we're talking about will be anatta, the linguistics make no change. Please consider how useful the term "I" is. 

Your search for lack of consistency in the Mata sutta seems far fetched to me. If you can't be dispassionate towards your parents, speak for "your self" ;) actually the idea that everyone is my parent makes letting go of parents easier imo. As does the idea that noone is my parent. The way I view it, most ideas are false, but some may be more useful than others. And as the suttas say, some kind of belief in rebirth sides with merit which is useful for me before I attain a more useful view. Or before such a view arises if I am to put it your way emoticon I'm quite convinced though one can't get to such a view through thought and discussion. 

Don't get me wrong, I think reincarantion is completely false. But so are gods, chairs, tables, you and I emoticon