Rebirth & Reincarnation
Also, is believing in either one (or both) a necessity in the definition of buddhism?
Comments
-
To put it simply, Buddhism teaches that there is no permanent soul that is reborn.peyruckus said:What is the difference between rebirth and reincarnation?
Also, is believing in either one (or both) a necessity in the definition of buddhism?
Spiny
-
Reincarnation is the old you looking out at the world.
Rebirth is a new you looking out at the world.
Many Buddhists believe in one or the other or both. It is not necessary to "believe" in either.
-
Buddha talked about his previous lives
and other people's previous lives many, many times.
Buddha also talked about where some people
will be reborned.
The attempt to separate reincarnation from Buddhism
is truly remarkable.peyruckus said:What is the difference between rebirth and reincarnation?
Also, is believing in either one (or both) a necessity in the definition of buddhism? -
An analogy I like is that reincarnation is like planting a new apple tree using a cutting from the old one and rebirth is like planting a new apple tree using a seed.
In both cases a new tree is born. In the first the new apple tree is essentially the same as the old as it will produce the same kind of apples. In the second a new apple tree will grow and make apples but the apples aren't the same kind, it's its own tree, not totally the same but not totally different. -
As far as I understand, rebirth is the involuntary migration to the next life in the endless cycle of birth, aging, sickness, growing old, and "death". Reincarnation is when one "realizes their true nature" and willingly chooses to be reborn to help guide sentient beings toward enlightenment.
Rebirth happens whether one believes in it or not, it is a fact of Samsara. To deeply contemplate it and work the implications of such a fact into your world-view is beneficial to practice.
In the years before I even knew what Buddhism was about I came across several stories in the papers about young children having memories of "where they lived in a previous life" -- I even recall one account of a boy who told his parents his old address, and kept asking them when they would go "home"
Finally, the parents took this boy to the address, several states away, and there was actually a house there! Even more amazing, the boy knew his way around it. He said that "when you die you come right back" -- and stories like this that I read made me wonder about what really happens when you die.
There are numerous accounts from people all over the world, usually in early-age, able to remember some details of a prior life. In India, accounts like this happen all the time, as the concept of rebirth is very much a part of their society. I encourage you to explore these ideas for yourself.
There is an interesting book I read recently, Reborn in the West, that I would encourage you to read through if you are interested. You can read it online for free, although I borrowed a copy from a library.
http://www.fpmt.org/fpmt/osel/biographies-books-articles/90-organization/osel/896-reborn-in-the-west.html -
I'm not kidding.
-
Rebirth does not necessarily have to involve physical birth. It can be metaphysical. Reincarnation would require a physical entity, or a womb.
-
According to Buddha,
there are 4 stages of enlightenment.
stream entry
once returner.
non returner.
arahant.
so, you dont get to choose, as far as Buddha taught.
sova said:As far as I understand, rebirth is the involuntary migration to the next life in the endless cycle of birth, aging, sickness, growing old, and "death". Reincarnation is when one "realizes their true nature" and willingly chooses to be reborn to help guide sentient beings toward enlightenment.
Rebirth happens whether one believes in it or not, it is a fact of Samsara. To deeply contemplate it and work the implications of such a fact into your world-view is beneficial to practice.
In the years before I even knew what Buddhism was about I came across several stories in the papers about young children having memories of "where they lived in a previous life" -- I even recall one account of a boy who told his parents his old address, and kept asking them when they would go "home"
Finally, the parents took this boy to the address, several states away, and there was actually a house there! Even more amazing, the boy knew his way around it. He said that "when you die you come right back" -- and stories like this that I read made me wonder about what really happens when you die.
There are numerous accounts from people all over the world, usually in early-age, able to remember some details of a prior life. In India, accounts like this happen all the time, as the concept of rebirth is very much a part of their society. I encourage you to explore these ideas for yourself.
There is an interesting book I read recently, Reborn in the West, that I would encourage you to read through if you are interested. You can read it online for free, although I borrowed a copy from a library.
http://www.fpmt.org/fpmt/osel/biographies-books-articles/90-organization/osel/896-reborn-in-the-west.html -
This is what I mean when I say exactly the same but different. Buddhism asserts anatman while other religions assert atman, but they are just labels. What's behind the labels is exactly the same thing. No one knows what a "soul" is, and consequently no one knows what no-soul is. We can say that a soul has no inherent (permanent) existence, but nothing we can observe is permanent. We can say that our mind stream doesn't end at death, but reincarnation says exactly the same thing.SpinyNorman said:
To put it simply, Buddhism teaches that there is no permanent soul that is reborn.peyruckus said:What is the difference between rebirth and reincarnation?
Also, is believing in either one (or both) a necessity in the definition of buddhism?
It is really the same. -
No, atman is not the same as anatman.Iktomi said:Buddhism asserts anatman while other religions assert atman, but they are just labels. What's behind the labels is exactly the same thing.
Spiny
-
Prof. Dr. H.V. Glasenapp (German indologist) didn't know what a soul is anymore than we do. Consequently, he also did not know what no-soul is.
-
yes, but he's in Accesstoinsight, and as they feel his work is worthy of publication, that's adequate recommendation for me that his work is worth considering.
I'm not putting the text forward as the last word on the subject, just something you might have liked to read.....
-
No one can say they are actually different because no one really knows what they are. Can't say that souls do or do not exist. There are ideas about them, but what is behind the ideas is exactly the same thing.SpinyNorman said:
No, atman is not the same as anatman.Iktomi said:Buddhism asserts anatman while other religions assert atman, but they are just labels. What's behind the labels is exactly the same thing.
Spiny -
That is an interesting point of view.Iktomi said:
No one can say they are actually different because no one really knows what they are. Can't say that souls do or do not exist. There are ideas about them, but what is behind the ideas is exactly the same thing.SpinyNorman said:
No, atman is not the same as anatman.Iktomi said:Buddhism asserts anatman while other religions assert atman, but they are just labels. What's behind the labels is exactly the same thing.
Spiny
So do you think they are merely teaching methods or medicine that help the sick?
If I recall Atman was clinging to basically any state of being (be it infinite consciousness, spaciousness, etc).
Whereas AnAtman is a negation of that, but what is left is inexpressible and ungraspable.
So you're saying that having anything to say about it (dualistically) is irrelevant?
=] -
If all we talked about was what is proven factual about Buddhism (or any other religion), we wouldn't have much to talk about.
-
Whatever the case here it's still consistent with reincarnation.taiyaki said:If I recall Atman was clinging to basically any state of being (be it infinite consciousness, spaciousness, etc).
But still consistent with reincarnation.Whereas AnAtman is a negation of that, but what is left is inexpressible and ungraspable.
Huh? I'm saying that rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing.So you're saying that having anything to say about it (dualistically) is irrelevant? -
I recall my thread about subjective mystical experience and objective science-type experience. I don't think anyone can prove a soul does or does not exist. Unless they are Egon from ghostbusters. http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/wiki/P.K.E._Meter
And yes, there is a ghostbusters wiki haha... I guess us newbuddhists aren't the only people with much time on our hands.
Anyhow soul is in the dimension of mind. One translation of the fourth skanda can be soul. At least I have seen that. Other translations are 'substance of mind'. And then the more traditional: formations, volitions, etc
I recall reading that it is the transformation of fourth skanda that is liberation:
form - morality
feeling - concentration
perception - wisdom
formations (sankhara I believe) - liberation
consciousness - knowledge of liberation
Of course all of these nice quotations and teachings we find are slanted by the ideologies of the organization that promotes them. There are some differences in how buddhism is taught not only in different traditions but sometimes differences across the same. -
Are you saying then that the Buddha was just arguing semantics and didn't come to an actual realization of these subtle mental states? For what purpose, was he trying to set himself apart from the other teachers of the time to attract students or fame or something?Iktomi said:
No one can say they are actually different because no one really knows what they are. Can't say that souls do or do not exist. There are ideas about them, but what is behind the ideas is exactly the same thing.
Everyone who followed and taught after him for that matter. The Buddhadharma isn't simply an intellectual dogma passed on, its about actually realizing anatman in one's direct experience. -
I'm saying that the "subtle mental states" are the same. How could they not be?person said:
Are you saying then that the Buddha was just arguing semantics and didn't come to an actual realization of these subtle mental states? For what purpose, was he trying to set himself apart from the other teachers of the time to attract students or fame or something?Iktomi said:
No one can say they are actually different because no one really knows what they are. Can't say that souls do or do not exist. There are ideas about them, but what is behind the ideas is exactly the same thing.
Everyone who followed and taught after him for that matter. The Buddhadharma isn't simply an intellectual dogma passed on, its about actually realizing anatman in one's direct experience. -
If no one can say they are different how is it that you can say they are the same?Iktomi said:
I'm saying that the "subtle mental states" are the same. How could they not be?
The principle of atman goes against impermanence and interdependence. The Buddha said that since phenomena are dependent upon one another and fleeting the 'I' isn't a fixed, permanent entity. That includes subtle mental states. In effect Atman is a thing that exists and anatman isn't a thing and it doesn't exist, quite different. -
When people are talking about their experience they are just describing. If they haven't studied buddhism they might describe their experience as a soul. But the experience is just experience. It is as it is. Christians have believed in a soul for the past 1000s of years. You'd think they would have noticed by now. :rolleyes: But their experience is just experience and they are interpreting it as a soul. A nun who comes over to see our dogs was visiting and we were talking. She said that she believes in heaven we have a body. That is the teaching. When I asked her whether we would be able to eat and drink she said that is a mystery.
-
I guess I'm just going on the word of the Buddha here but he never studied Buddhism, he simply was talking about his experience. This distinction between atman and anatman is at the core of Buddhist philosophy and experience and not simply a label.Jeffrey said:When people are talking about their experience they are just describing. If they haven't studied buddhism they might describe their experience as a soul. But the experience is just experience. It is as it is.
-
Person I agree. I am pointing out that a Christian has the same experience every human has. Their vocabulary available is to call it 'soul'. They might not have a lot of insight or they might be a saint and very wise. But having not grown up in the nest of buddhism they are going to describe what they have found with their wisdom quite differently from a buddhist.
Even in the buddhist community buddhism is understood differently. For example there is the shentong and rangtong distinction which I am not educated to understand but I can intuit a certain perfume or vibe depending. And then there is Pali Canon versus prajnaparamita sutras. -
Yes, that's a good summary of Buddhist teaching. And anatta is one of the 3 characteristics of conditioned existence, along with dukkha and anicca.person said:
The principle of atman goes against impermanence and interdependence. The Buddha said that since phenomena are dependent upon one another and fleeting the 'I' isn't a fixed, permanent entity. That includes subtle mental states. In effect Atman is a thing that exists and anatman isn't a thing and it doesn't exist, quite different.
Spiny -
You're right, but I think anatta and sunyata are generally accepted as core teachings.Jeffrey said:There are some differences in how buddhism is taught not only in different traditions but sometimes differences across the same.
Spiny
-
But according to Buddhist teaching there isn't a soul, there is no fixed entity that is reborn.Can't say that souls do or do not exist. There are ideas about them, but what is behind the ideas is exactly the same thing.
Spiny -
My stupid take:
Rebirth leads to reincarnation. For "reincarnation," see "re-embodiment."
You are currently a reincarnation of your past incarnation: a re-embodiment of your past embodiment. But you are not at this moment a rebirth of your past birth. However, you got to this (re)embodiment through a process of (re)birth.
That would mean there's no deep conceptual thing to be learned here. It's just what part of the process you want to talk about.
Conrad. -
And there's no fix entity that's reincarnated...SpinyNorman said:
But according to Buddhist teaching there isn't a soul, there is no fixed entity that is reborn.Can't say that souls do or do not exist. There are ideas about them, but what is behind the ideas is exactly the same thing.
Spiny -
Actually, it doesn't.person said:
If no one can say they are different how is it that you can say they are the same?Iktomi said:
I'm saying that the "subtle mental states" are the same. How could they not be?
The principle of atman goes against impermanence and interdependence.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear. Atman and anatman apply to the same phenomena so either they are merely different labels or there are two kinds of phenomena. Do you really believe that some people are reborn while others are reincarnated???The Buddha said that since phenomena are dependent upon one another and fleeting the 'I' isn't a fixed, permanent entity. That includes subtle mental states. In effect Atman is a thing that exists and anatman isn't a thing and it doesn't exist, quite different. -
My understanding is that it does. Could you explain how it doesn't?Iktomi said:
They do apply to the same phenomena, but one says it exists while the other one negates it. I agree that either they are labels or the phenomena are different. I think the Buddhadharma says they are different because of the three seals.Iktomi said:person said:The Buddha said that since phenomena are dependent upon one another and fleeting the 'I' isn't a fixed, permanent entity. That includes subtle mental states. In effect Atman is a thing that exists and anatman isn't a thing and it doesn't exist, quite different.
Iktomi said:Maybe I'm not making myself clear. Atman and anatman apply to the same phenomena so either they are merely different labels or there are two kinds of phenomena.
If this is the crux of your argument I'm with you. A phenomena of rebirth/reincarnation is occuring regardless of what we call it. The distinction is in the explanation of the mechanism of transferrence. A slam dunk and a jumpshot are the same in that the result is 2 points they aren't the same in the way they are scored.Iktomi said:Do you really believe that some people are reborn while others are reincarnated???
The difference in the mechanism of rebirth vs reincarnation is an important point of Buddhism and wrapped up in it is a fundamental difference in the ultimate makeup of reality. -
?? Does reality wear makeup?
-
Yeah, its called ignorance.conradcook said:?? Does reality wear makeup?
-
I believe in rebirth but have come to see that it is not important to ones life to fight over, debate or argue. But I would like to point out that the HH DL is meant to be a reincarnation...
-
Anything that doesn't change is lifeless and dead. People at least seem to be alive. And if atman were somehow independent it would be independent of the cause & effect relationships in the world. That doesn't make any sense.person said:
My understanding is that it does. Could you explain how it doesn't?Iktomi said:
When some say that anatman doesn't exist they are only speaking of impermanence. Everything is impermanent.person said:In effect Atman is a thing that exists and anatman isn't a thing and it doesn't exist, quite different.
Yes.person said:rebirth/reincarnation is occuring regardless of what we call it.
The only known meaningful "mechanism" is cause & effect, which obviously applies to both rebirth and reincarnation. Cause & effect can only work with impermanent and dependent phenomena.person said:The distinction is in the explanation of the mechanism of transferrence. A slam dunk and a jumpshot are the same in that the result is 2 points they aren't the same in the way they are scored.
The difference in the mechanism of rebirth vs reincarnation is an important point of Buddhism and wrapped up in it is a fundamental difference in the ultimate makeup of reality.
-
No it doesn't make any sense, that's why atman is denied and thus anatman.Iktomi said:Anything that doesn't change is lifeless and dead. People at least seem to be alive. And if atman were somehow independent it would be independent of the cause & effect relationships in the world. That doesn't make any sense...
When some say that anatman doesn't exist they are only speaking of impermanence. Everything is impermanent...
The only known meaningful "mechanism" is cause & effect, which obviously applies to both rebirth and reincarnation. Cause & effect can only work with impermanent and dependent phenomena.
You're arguing for some different version of atman here that concurs with Buddhist theory. Chadrakirti's definition of Atman is: Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness.
Also from wikipedia In the Abhidharmapiṭaka (Pāli: Abhidhammapiṭaka), a treatise on metaphysics, the prime doctrine which allows pure Buddhist philosophy to successfully explain all phenomena is that all things happen with cause. Ātman is a conceptual attachment to oneself that promotes a false belief that one is intrinsic and without incident. This attachment further diverges one's route from the path to enlightenment and hence nirvāṇa as all forms of attachment do.
-
Lol. What, you don't think anatman/rebirth is a conceptual attachment to oneself that promotes a false belief that one is intrinsic and without incident.person said:
No it doesn't make any sense, that's why atman is denied and thus anatman.Iktomi said:Anything that doesn't change is lifeless and dead. People at least seem to be alive. And if atman were somehow independent it would be independent of the cause & effect relationships in the world. That doesn't make any sense...
When some say that anatman doesn't exist they are only speaking of impermanence. Everything is impermanent...
The only known meaningful "mechanism" is cause & effect, which obviously applies to both rebirth and reincarnation. Cause & effect can only work with impermanent and dependent phenomena.
You're arguing for some different version of atman here that concurs with Buddhist theory. Chadrakirti's definition of Atman is: Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness.
Also from wikipedia In the Abhidharmapiṭaka (Pāli: Abhidhammapiṭaka), a treatise on metaphysics, the prime doctrine which allows pure Buddhist philosophy to successfully explain all phenomena is that all things happen with cause. Ātman is a conceptual attachment to oneself that promotes a false belief that one is intrinsic and without incident. This attachment further diverges one's route from the path to enlightenment and hence nirvāṇa as all forms of attachment do.
With both rebirth and reincarnation if you do good in life you have a favorable rebirth. If you do bad you don't. Works exactly the same way. -
Anatman means not self, its not simply another assertion of an intrinsic self with a different name. Someone can certainly reify that notion into a conceptual attachment though. The actual way its explained and taught though is to break down our conceptual frameworks.Iktomi said:Lol. What, you don't think anatman/rebirth is a conceptual attachment to oneself that promotes a false belief that one is intrinsic and without incident.
With both rebirth and reincarnation if you do good in life you have a favorable rebirth. If you do bad you don't. Works exactly the same way.
Maybe you do actually have a correct understanding that goes against 2,500 years of Buddhist logic. To convince me though you'll have to do more than make a blanket statement that they work the same way.
I could say happy and overjoyed are exactly the same thing, they are just words and the actual experience is identical. Most people have enough experience with these emotions to say that the actual emotional experience these words point to are different. In the same way someone who has sufficiently stilled their mind and perceived the subtle workings of the mind could say that the direct perception of atman and anatman are either the same or different. The Buddha said he found that they are different and one leads to liberation and the other leads to a birth in one of the formless realms. Not only Buddha but many masters that have come after him. -
Anatman is simply an observation that phenomena are conditional and thus a self is a collection of causes and conditions.
It's like the sky is blue. It's just an observation.
The application of this idea is to grasping. Just seeing that we change does not completely help us. We also have to accept change including losing what we love and getting things which we don't want like death. -
And Nagarjuna states:
“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other
than the aggregates.
The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
What Tathagata is there?”
Have fun. -
"If there is no existent self, or a soul, how does it fit in with Buddhist doctrines like rebirth? Or even more simply (for those who don't believe in rebirth), how does feeling, sensing, perceiving happen, without an existent self?
The Buddha's answer to this is direct, simple, yet profound. He explains this through dependent origination:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
The same would apply for rebirth, which actually is a term for the continuity of a causal/karmic process and not of a self-entity.
Who is reborn is asked falsely, as the Buddha did not say 'he reborns'. The correct way to ask would be, 'What is the condition for birth?' And to that the correct reply is: 'with ignorance as condition i.e. false view and clinging to a self, birth arises'. The next birth is neither the same nor different from a previous birth in the same way that the flame of a newly lighted candle is neither same nor different from the previous candle, being merely a process of causal continuity instead of the passing on of an unchanging soul-entity.
As we can see, Dependent Origination only truly makes sense when we are not obscured by self-view. Before the realization of Anatta, D.O. can be grasped intellectually, but not fully actualized due to dualistic view, and therefore cannot be fully appreciated. Hence to realize D.O. we have to realize Anatta, then when everything becomes seen as causal processes, the insight into Shunyata (as in the secondfold emptiness, the emptiness of phenomena) can arise with further contemplations and pointers."
-
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html -
This is consistent with reincarnation.Jeffrey said:Anatman is simply an observation that phenomena are conditional and thus a self is a collection of causes and conditions.
It's like the sky is blue. It's just an observation.
The application of this idea is to grasping. Just seeing that we change does not completely help us. We also have to accept change including losing what we love and getting things which we don't want like death.
Leave a Comment
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions 13K
- Buddhism for Beginners 4,735
- Meditation 927
- Diet & Habits 72
- Modern Buddhism 977
- Comparing Religions 512
- Sanghas 329
- Arts & Writings 772
- Current Events 553
- Advanced Ideas 917
- NewBuddhist.com 301
- General Banter 2,899