why is all of Buddhas past lifes referes to times of kings

Question

The title says it all.

Why does all the recollections of past lifes of Buddha revolves around times of kings which were similar to the time the Buddha was living.

Why aren't there any mention of times that are similar to the times of what we are living right now ?

does this mean this is the 1st time in the sansara that we are living in a world like this ?

if it is the 1st time, that we are living in a world like this with so many technological advances, that would mean we are living in sansara which is not repeating, which in turns mean that new things can happen in the sansara. then how can we be even sure about enlightenment. if sansara can change what is to say that some day all beings that achieved nibbana will not again be reborn?

Answer 1

Why Buddha's past lives refers to times of kings

1) Because when Buddha was teaching, the audiences were living at the time of the kings. It's pointless to talk to the audiences ruled by the kings that there were governments governed by universal suffrage president elected by public votes - how could they understand it? Moreover, it's painful to add unnecessary burdens to the audiences introducing a new concept whilst the Dharma such as Anatta and Emptiness was already beyond general mind. The Buddha had nothing to do with his own self - Anatta, all his doings were because of teaching others, so was when talking about his past lives.

2) When Buddha was asked by the Bhikkus to tell them how the "heaven and earth" was formed and what was like in the beginning of time - cosmology, Buddha explaint in the way these Bhikkus could understand: aliens who's faces shaped as square, round, trapezoid (Jambudvīpa, earthlings) and half-moon from 4 corners of the "heaven and earth" - the universe; galaxies in spiral or odd shapes - worlds like gyroscope, like plate or tilted. And when telling them there were numerous bacteria in the water, he could only name it "worms". We shouldn't use the concept of modern day to wrap around the past. Sutras were recording what Buddha taught 3000 years ago, thus used the terminology understandable to people living at those times.

3) Now Buddha has already enlightened, so he will not return to Samsara at this time for he is already freed from it. If Buddha returned his is doing it for teaching, not for himself, therefore these shouldn't be called his past lives.

4) Although in many circumstances many Sutras mentioned Buddha talked about his past lives, these not the complete record of his past lives. For there is no beginning and no ending of past lives we, Buddha before attaining Buddha-hood, lived, not mentioned doesn't mean not existed. The mentioned past lives were particularly related to certain teachings.

And last

Samsara now has new things, not repeating itself... technology advances?

Nope. Even the Bible has a glimpse of the truth:

"So there is nothing new under the sun" ~Book of Ecclesiastes 1:9

Answer 2

then how can we be even sure about enlightenment

I think there are schools of Buddhism which say that enlightenment becomes less possible, as the centuries go by and the Buddha's doctrine becomes distorted.

There are also schools which say that enlightenment is already attained (by the Buddha), therefore enlightenment is certain.

Or that all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent, but that some dhammas (especially nirvana) are unconditioned (and not-self), and "timeless" (or immediate).

People also often say that it (the path to enlightenment) is something you should experience for yourself, i.e. have direct experience of.

if sansara can change

I think that sansara is expected to change: that it's considered "impermanent" in Buddhism.

What seems more-or-less constant about it is a cycle of death and life (perhaps you you'll agree that death and life still exist), and suffering (oceans of tears), and causes of suffering, etc., as described in Dharma.

what is to say that some day all beings that achieved nibbana will not again be reborn?

I think that some schools of Buddhism assert that some relatively-enlightened beings are reborn (see for example "Bodhisatvas" and "tulkus").

But perhaps the statement "beings that achieved nirvana may be reborn" is a nonsense phrase, for example because it assumes that "the same being" may be "reborn" ... whereas, sansara and impermanence posit that anything "reborn" is necessarily a different being.

Also, enlightenment and "being" might be mutually contradictory. It reminds me of this Vajira Sutta:

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.

I think that's connected with for example this discussion of 'trackless'.

Beware too that this is (or is nearly) a topic for which it's difficult to get sensible answers: the unanswered questions include questions about whether the Tathagata exists after death, and the four imponderables includes

The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha]

The warning is that speculation on these topics may be counter-productive -- not the right way.

Answer 3

Buddhist stories stick to conventions. These days we use the words president and prime minister. A million years from now they might call the rulers lords. We had Pharaoh's if you study Egyptian history.

Buddha uses conventions and avoids using words that will distract people from dhamma, as people might want to explore further.

Answer 4

The bulk of the Pali suttas do not include recollection of 'past lives'. Here, the Pali words are 'pubbe nivasa', which mean recollection of 'past abodes', 'past dwellings' or 'past adherences'.

In short, it means recollecting in the past when the mind ignorantly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as 'self'. This is explained in SN 22.79.

As stated in SN 22.79, since such recollection can include only one aggregate, it seems obvious it does not refer to past lives because a life cannot comprise of only one aggregate, unless it is claimed having a past life of a tree or plant.

More crucially, SN 22.79 states to cling to past recollection as "I" or "mine" is wrong view.

However, probably at a later time, a mere handful of questionable & contradictory suttas were created, such as AN 3.15, AN 9.20, MN 50, MN 81, MN 123 & MN 143.

As stated in the question, that these (later) suttas do not account for technological developments (such as the three-age system) supports the view these literal reincarnation suttas are dodgy.

These later suttas have the same style as the Apadānas, Buddhāpadāna & Jataka Tales, which were composed hundreds of years after the passing away of the Buddha.

Answer 5

"If it is the 1st time, that we are living in a world like this with so many technological advances, that would mean we are living in sansara which is not repeating, which in turns mean that new things can happen in the sansara. then how can we be even sure about enlightenment. if sansara can change what is to say that some day all beings that achieved nibbana will not again be reborn?"

If we were sure about enlightenment we would be enlightened. One can't be sure of enlightenment at least until one has found stream entry.

According to the Buddha's ultimate reality teaching, nothing is really repeating but empty formations. I would think that , just because technological formations have predictable functions doesn't make them anymore real. Technology is empty, sunyata, not-self or anatta.

and also...

Yes, why is it always times of kings, the same exact culture and I guess there was Buddha's around 300,000 years ago? That teaching, that there were several other Buddha's before Gotama Buddha, that's got to be the most glaringly wrong teaching that I can think of(that and women can't be Buddhas). Doesn't it conflict with the theory of evolution? How could 28 Buddhas who lived like 10,000 years apart each have lived before Gotama? I don't know if the Jatikas were meant to be taken so literally. I mean, maybe they are just teachings that help students understand rebirth. -metta