Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Investigating reincarnation.

hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
edited September 2013 in Philosophy
«1

Comments

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    In the Wikipedia entry about reincarnation, it says that, "The Buddha reportedly warned that this experience can be misleading and should be interpreted with care."

    Those of you more knowledgeable -- what is that statement referring to?

    Thanks.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    And another thing I'd like someone to do -- since someone will soon be critical of the use of the word reincarnation -- explain to me the difference between rebirth and reincarnation in 4 sentences or less.
  • vinlyn said:

    And another thing I'd like someone to do -- since someone will soon be critical of the use of the word reincarnation -- explain to me the difference between rebirth and reincarnation in 4 sentences or less.

    Uh-oh.... 4 sentences? I think 4 chapters is more likely, @vinlyn! Duck and Cover!!
    dhammachick
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited August 2013
    MaryAnne said:

    vinlyn said:

    And another thing I'd like someone to do -- since someone will soon be critical of the use of the word reincarnation -- explain to me the difference between rebirth and reincarnation in 4 sentences or less.

    Uh-oh.... 4 sentences? I think 4 chapters is more likely, @vinlyn! Duck and Cover!!
    What? I'll reincarnate as a duck?

    But seriously folks, it the essential difference between the two can't be explained in a paragraph (of normal length), I'll be surprised.

    MaryAnnedhammachick
  • Reincarnation means your same personality is reborn? Rebirth means that only your bodhicitta is reborn? So the tulkus are reincarnated and they are said to be 'of x being' whereas the rest of us we have a totally different conditional mind though they might be attracted and repelled by some things from their previous birth.

    I know that's not a particularly good understanding.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Actually that ^^^ explains it pretty well (although it took 7 sentences).

    But what is interesting to me is how much arguing is done about the differences between 2 things that nobody can prove actually happen.

    Hmmmmmmmmmm.
    Jeffreylobster
  • howhow Veteran
    edited August 2013
    @vinlyn
    It might be wrong but I thought
    rebirth just referred to the aggregates coalescing to produce a new life
    whereas
    reincarnation referred to that inertial energy from one death that was specifically recognizable in the next life.
    dhammachickriverflow
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    @how, that sounds pretty much like the link I provided...although my impression was that it was not saying definitely recognizable, but perhaps some vague inklings of recognition.
  • howhow Veteran
    edited August 2013
    @vinlyn
    Missed the link while shooting from the hip. My bad!
    I was just thinking that one sentence would do it.
  • dhammachickdhammachick crazy Aussie BUJU Sydney, Australia Veteran
    edited August 2013
    vinlyn said:

    MaryAnne said:

    vinlyn said:

    And another thing I'd like someone to do -- since someone will soon be critical of the use of the word reincarnation -- explain to me the difference between rebirth and reincarnation in 4 sentences or less.

    Uh-oh.... 4 sentences? I think 4 chapters is more likely, @vinlyn! Duck and Cover!!
    What? I'll reincarnate as a duck?

    But seriously folks, it the essential difference between the two can't be explained in a paragraph (of normal length), I'll be surprised.

    I'll take a stab at it and explain it as I understand it.

    Reincarnation is the return of a soul or atman whereas rebirth is the continuation of the mind.

    But I could be wrong - I frequently am ;)

    In metta,
    Raven
    riverflow42bodhi
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    how said:

    @vinlyn
    Missed the link while shooting from the hip. My bad!
    I was just thinking that one sentence would do it.

    Not bad at all. I think you hit it pretty well.

  • reincarnation means the person/being
    in the next life shares similarities with
    the being in the present life.

    in hinduism, the soul/atman is eternal,
    so going into the next life is like a person
    changing clothes or shedding skin.
    you are the same person, just in a different
    body.

    in buddhism, there is strong connection
    between the previous life and the present.
    but there is no soul/atman that is permanent.

    here, at newbuddhist, rebirth is the prefferred
    term used by members who does not believe in
    reincarnation.

    vinlyn said:

    MaryAnne said:

    vinlyn said:

    And another thing I'd like someone to do -- since someone will soon be critical of the use of the word reincarnation -- explain to me the difference between rebirth and reincarnation in 4 sentences or less.

    Uh-oh.... 4 sentences? I think 4 chapters is more likely, @vinlyn! Duck and Cover!!
    What? I'll reincarnate as a duck?

    But seriously folks, it the essential difference between the two can't be explained in a paragraph (of normal length), I'll be surprised.

    I'll take a stab at it and explain it as I understand it.

    Reincarnation is the return of a soul or atman whereas rebirth is the continuation of the mind.

    But I could be wrong - I frequently am ;)

    In metta,
    Raven
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    hermitwin said:

    ...

    here, at newbuddhist, rebirth is the prefferred
    term used by members who does not believe in
    reincarnation.

    ???

  • zenffzenff Veteran
    The Buddhist simile is that of one candle lighting another candle. The next flame (life) is not completely identical with the previous one nor is it completely unrelated.

    The crucial question however is if I will experience this next life or if it will be someone else.
    That’s a clear and essential difference. The hammer will come down on someone else’s thumb or on my thumb, and that will make a difference to me.
    There is one specific me; it is linked to one specific neural network and will experience the qualia of a unique set of events.

    The question is what this ability to experience this life as my life (qualia) exactly is.
    When we understand better what subjective conscious experience exactly is we can start asking what happens to it when our brains stop functioning.
    dhammachickriverflowThinGentlement
  • vinlyn said:

    And another thing I'd like someone to do -- since someone will soon be critical of the use of the word reincarnation -- explain to me the difference between rebirth and reincarnation in 4 sentences or less.

    Reincarnation assumes a permanent soul which transmigrates, rebirth assumes the dependent arising of consciousness.
    Do I get a prize?
    :p
    riverflow
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran
    edited August 2013
    vinlyn said:


    But what is interesting to me is how much arguing is done about the differences between 2 things that nobody can prove actually happen.

    If one is interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings then it's an important distinction. If one isn't interested then it isn't.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    vinlyn said:

    And another thing I'd like someone to do -- since someone will soon be critical of the use of the word reincarnation -- explain to me the difference between rebirth and reincarnation in 4 sentences or less.

    Reincarnation assumes a permanent soul which transmigrates, rebirth assumes the dependent arising of consciousness.
    Do I get a prize?
    :p
    No.

  • robotrobot Veteran

    vinlyn said:


    But what is interesting to me is how much arguing is done about the differences between 2 things that nobody can prove actually happen.

    If one is interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings then it's an important distinction. If one isn't interested then it isn't.
    Where did Buddha explain the difference and what part does understanding the distinction play in reducing suffering?
    I don't see why one view or the other will reduce clinging to the notion that my self will end at death then be reborn.
    The supposed distinction seems like just words to me. Not too important.
    vinlyn
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    vinlyn said:


    But what is interesting to me is how much arguing is done about the differences between 2 things that nobody can prove actually happen.

    If one is interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings then it's an important distinction. If one isn't interested then it isn't.
    I don't agree with that at all.

    For one thing, it depends how far into the teachings you want to go. For example, I would say one can live by the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, and the 5 basic Precepts without going into the difference between reincarnation and rebirth...because in the end, what difference will it make to a living person.

    Additionally, how interested one is in the topic may depend on whether you look at Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy.

    But, let me ask you a question. I assume you believe it is rebirth. If tomorrow you definitively found out it was reincarnation, how would your daily life change?

    karastiCitta
  • riverflowriverflow Veteran
    edited August 2013
    I've taken a liking to Thich Nhat Hanh's explanation. He prefers to call it "continuation":
    You are continued by your views and your thinking. Those are the children you give birth to every moment. And that is your true continuation.
    So it is crucial to look deeply at your thoughts and your views. What are you holding on to?

    Whether you are an artist or a businessperson, a parent or a teacher, you have your views about how to live your life, how to help other people, how to make your country prosperous, and so on. When you are attached to these views, to the idea of right and wrong, then you may get caught.

    When your thinking is caught in these views, then you create misunderstanding, anger, and violence. That is what you are becoming in this very moment.

    When you are mindful of this and can look deeply, you can produce thoughts that are full of love and understanding. You can make yourself and the world around you suffer less. You are not static. You are the life that you are becoming.
    In other words, karma means action, the RE-action and RE-action and RE-action. It has nothing to do with a reified self transmigrating, but with karma continuing into the world. Or ceasing-- and that cessation comes about through the awareness that Buddhist practice brings.
    Cittakarasti
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran
    edited August 2013
    vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:


    But what is interesting to me is how much arguing is done about the differences between 2 things that nobody can prove actually happen.

    If one is interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings then it's an important distinction. If one isn't interested then it isn't.
    I don't agree with that at all.

    For one thing, it depends how far into the teachings you want to go. For example, I would say one can live by the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, and the 5 basic Precepts without going into the difference between reincarnation and rebirth...because in the end, what difference will it make to a living person.
    Perhaps I should have said "if one is seriously interested in the Buddha,s teachings then it's an important distinction."
    In the suttas the second Noble Truth is expressed in terms of craving for rebirth, and Right View also refers to it. Also the distinction between re-incarnation and rebirth rests on an understanding of anatta and dependent arising, both of which are pivotal.

    I think it's one thing to properly understand these teachings and then decide they can be set aside as not relevant to one's daily practice. But it's another thing entirely to ignore or marginalise them, based on feelings of aversion.
  • robot said:

    vinlyn said:


    But what is interesting to me is how much arguing is done about the differences between 2 things that nobody can prove actually happen.

    If one is interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings then it's an important distinction. If one isn't interested then it isn't.
    Where did Buddha explain the difference and what part does understanding the distinction play in reducing suffering?
    See for example the Buddha's advice to Sati in MN38, where he explains it isn't the same consciousness that "wanders on". Read DN15 for a detailed explanation of dependent origination, particularly the section headed "Name and form".
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:


    But what is interesting to me is how much arguing is done about the differences between 2 things that nobody can prove actually happen.

    If one is interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings then it's an important distinction. If one isn't interested then it isn't.
    I don't agree with that at all.

    For one thing, it depends how far into the teachings you want to go. For example, I would say one can live by the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, and the 5 basic Precepts without going into the difference between reincarnation and rebirth...because in the end, what difference will it make to a living person.
    Perhaps I should have said "if one is seriously interested in the Buddha,s teachings then it's an important distinction."
    In the suttas the second Noble Truth is expressed in terms of craving for rebirth, and Right View also refers to it. Also the distinction between re-incarnation and rebirth rests on an understanding of anatta and dependent arising, both of which are pivotal.

    I think it's one thing to properly understand these teachings and then decide they can be set aside as not relevant to one's daily practice. But it's another thing entirely to ignore or marginalise them, based on feelings of aversion.
    And that difference in our view goes back to the all or nothing at all approach to Buddhism.

    But you also failed to answer the question, so I'll ask it more simply.

    If today you thought rebirth was correct, but tomorrow found reincarnation was correct, how would it change how you live your life?

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited August 2013
    I think rebirth refers to some specific sutras and ideologies. The 12 nidanas for example show rebirth. I think that is the same 'rebirth' as in our discussions.

    Reicarnation would have to be another word because rebirth and reincarnation are translated into English as two words. I am not aware of reincarnation existing in the sutras. So it could just be a myth to explain the world like the mountains being made of a norse God's legs when he lies down.

    And then I think tulkus were added though there may have been the phenomena of tulkus before. If so it would have to be that the phenomena was not publicized ie the tulkus were in secrecy.
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    Neither word is found in the suttas. Normally Jati or "birth" as it translates is used.
  • Victorious, is Jati used in the teaching of the 12 'links'

    1ignorance
    2karma
    3consciousness
    4namo rupa
    5contact
    6desire (can't think of the word)
    7craving
    8becoming
    9birth
    10death

    You can see I am missing some probably along with my marbles, ha!
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited August 2013


    @Jeffrey
    I took a peek and according to accesstoinsight in Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta the word Uppajjati seems to be used...

    According to the wikipedia on the 12 nidanas the word Jati

    is used... I know too little Pali to make any sense out of it.

    BTW why do you ask?

    /Victor
  • vinlyn said:

    And another thing I'd like someone to do -- since someone will soon be critical of the use of the word reincarnation -- explain to me the difference between rebirth and reincarnation in 4 sentences or less.

    not sure how relevant this is, or how you feel about mahayana sutras, but this I found interesting, from the Srimala Devi Sutra:
    13. Intrinsic Purity of the Mind

    "Lord, samsara is based on the Tathagatagarbha. It was with reference to the Tathagatagarbha that the Lord pointed out and explained, '[It is] without limit in the past.' Since there is the Tathagatagarbha, there is reason for speaking of 'cyclical flow' (samasra). Lord, as to 'cyclical flow,' no sooner do the sense organs for perception pass away than it [the Tathagatagarbha] takes hold of sense organs for perception, and that is 'cyclical flow.' Lord, the two natures, 'passing away' and 'rebirth' are conventional terminology for the Tathagatagarbha. Lord, 'perished' and 'born' are conventional terminology for the world (loka). 'Perished' is the loss of the senses. 'Born' is the renewal of the senses. But, Lord, the Tathagatagarbha is not born, does not die, does not pass away to become reborn. The Tathagatagarbha excludes the realm with the characteristic of the constructed. The Tathagatagarbha is permanent, steadfast, eternal. Therefore the Tathagatagarbha is the support, the holder, the base of constructed [Buddha natures] that are nondiscrete, not dissociated, and knowing as liberated from the stores [of defilement]; and furthermore is the support, the holder, the base of external constructed natures that are discrete, dissociated, and knowing as not liberated.
  • SilouanSilouan Veteran
    edited September 2013
    Regarding Rebirth

    Translated from the Milindapanha, a Northern Buddhist work composed between 100 BCE and 200 CE , but was considered orthodox by the Southern Buddhists of Ceylon, Burma, and Siam contained in the book “Buddhism In Translation” by Henry Clarke Warren:

    In four sentences:

    “Bhante Nagasena,” said the king, “what is it that is born into the next existence?”

    “Your Majesty,” said the elder, “it is name and form that is born into the next existence.”

    Is it the same name and form that is born into the next existence?”

    “Your Majesty, it is not the same name and form that is born into existence; but with this name and form, one does a deed-it may be good, or it may be wicked-and by reason of this deed another name and form is born into the next existence.”

    Translated from the Visuddhi-Magga (chap. Xvii) contained in the book “Buddhism In Translation” by Henry Clarke Warren

    In three sentences:
    “It is only elements of being possessing a dependence that arrive at a new existence; none transmigrated from the last existence, nor are they in the new existence without causes contained in the old. By this is said that it is only elements of being, with form or without, but possessing dependence, that arrive at a new existence. There is no entity, no living principle; no elements of being transmigrated from the last existence into the present one; nor, on the other hand, do they appear in the present existence without causes in that one.”

    In three sentences:
    “Now while consciousness still subsists, in as much as desire and ignorance have not been abandoned and the evil of the object is hidden by that ignorance, desire inclines the consciousness to the object; and the karma that sprang up along with consciousness impels it toward the object...

    Here the former consciousness, from its passing out of existence, is called passing away, and the latter, from its being reborn into a new existence, is called rebirth. But it must be understood that this latter consciousness did not come to the present existence from the previous one, and also that it is only to causes contained in the old existence, - namely, to karma called predispositions, to inclination, an object, etc., - that its present appearance is due.”

    On Reincarnation

    In two sentences:
    I don't know much about the notion of an eternal soul, but it suggests that it is a distinct entity separate from the body with the coming together of the two bringing about an entity which is entirely different from what each is in itself. This can only occur by either undergoing a change or by becoming what they are by nature. In the latter case the soul would never cease being reincarnated and the body reanimated.

    An Aside

    In two sentences:
    The notion of eternal soul is foreign to patristic Christian tradition, though many among Christians and Buddhists seem to assume an eternal soul is a commonly held Christian belief. I mention this, because even the website @vinlyn referenced here has made that assumption, and I have found it in other commentaries and writings of contemporary Buddhist practitioners and mediators of note.
    karmabluesVictoriousriverflow


  • @Jeffrey
    I took a peek and according to accesstoinsight in Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta the word Uppajjati seems to be used...

    According to the wikipedia on the 12 nidanas the word Jati

    is used... I know too little Pali to make any sense out of it.

    BTW why do you ask?

    /Victor

    @Victorious so the word Jati is used? I was trying to figure out if 'birth' in rebirth (as in the scripture) is the same 'birth' as in the 12 nidanas (or links). If so then we have a context to understand what rebirth is and also why it ends when ignorance ends.

    Thanks for letting us know about your expeditions in the scripture!
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    Jeffrey said:



    @Victorious so the word Jati is used? I was trying to figure out if 'birth' in rebirth (as in the scripture) is the same 'birth' as in the 12 nidanas (or links). If so then we have a context to understand what rebirth is and also why it ends when ignorance ends.

    Thats great because that is a part of what I am trying to do right now! What I have been up to is trying to understand the workings of the DO from the suttas that explains it.

    I think there has been some discussions on this site about it and there are plenty on other sites.

    Probably you know that there are two major ways of seeing the DO? The first as spanning over several lifetimes and one as describing the moment to moment rebirth of the self.

    Mostly western buddhists and in particular secular buddhists tend to disapprove of the first but rather embrace the last.

    But my intuition is that these two views are not in opposition but maybe more understandable if studied together.

    I can not say I have gotten far on my mission but what I have been doing is to try to understand the suttas explanations of the DO in each of the two ways the DO is understood. To see if I can find any contradictions or if I can get a better understanding from each explanation.

    In the moment to moment understanding birth or rebirth is supposed to mean the rebirth of the self and understanding why no self will be reborn if our knowleadge of the Dhamma is perfected is not difficult to understand.

    In the other case where birth or rebirth is supposed to mean reincarnation one way I can understand no rebirth will occur if ignorance is obliterated is because in the case the being is waiting to be reborn it is said to be "craving sustained". So without craving no rebirth can occur.

    But I am just guessing really. Am still trying to understand everything. I would welcome any and all input on this.


    /Victor
  • Neither word is found in the suttas. Normally Jati or "birth" as it translates is used.

    Actually some suttas use punnabhava, "again becoming". But if we're talking about dependent origination, it's clear from the way the nidanas are defined that physical birth and death arise in dependence on bhava, which is existence / becoming in the 3 realms - so jati ( birth ) clearly means repeated birth in samsara.
    Victorious
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran
    edited September 2013
    vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:


    But what is interesting to me is how much arguing is done about the differences between 2 things that nobody can prove actually happen.

    If one is interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings then it's an important distinction. If one isn't interested then it isn't.
    I don't agree with that at all.

    For one thing, it depends how far into the teachings you want to go. For example, I would say one can live by the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, and the 5 basic Precepts without going into the difference between reincarnation and rebirth...because in the end, what difference will it make to a living person.
    Perhaps I should have said "if one is seriously interested in the Buddha,s teachings then it's an important distinction."
    In the suttas the second Noble Truth is expressed in terms of craving for rebirth, and Right View also refers to it. Also the distinction between re-incarnation and rebirth rests on an understanding of anatta and dependent arising, both of which are pivotal.

    I think it's one thing to properly understand these teachings and then decide they can be set aside as not relevant to one's daily practice. But it's another thing entirely to ignore or marginalise them, based on feelings of aversion.
    And that difference in our view goes back to the all or nothing at all approach to Buddhism.
    If today you thought rebirth was correct, but tomorrow found reincarnation was correct, how would it change how you live your life?

    I don't get your "all or nothing" comment. You asked about the distinction between rebirth and reincarnation and you've had several clear answers to the question. And I've explained why understanding the distinction is important.
    For some Buddhist schools the teachings on rebirth and kamma are central, for other schools these teachings are peripheral. But with the exception of secular Buddhism I don't know of any schools that reject these teachings.
    I don't see the relevance of what I personally believe or assume.
  • how about
    abhinibbatto ; Reborn in another existence.

    Neither word is found in the suttas. Normally Jati or "birth" as it translates is used.

    Actually some suttas use punnabhava, "again becoming". But if we're talking about dependent origination, it's clear from the way the nidanas are defined that physical birth and death arise in dependence on bhava, which is existence / becoming in the 3 realms - so jati ( birth ) clearly means repeated birth in samsara.
    Victorious
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:


    But what is interesting to me is how much arguing is done about the differences between 2 things that nobody can prove actually happen.

    If one is interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings then it's an important distinction. If one isn't interested then it isn't.
    I don't agree with that at all.

    For one thing, it depends how far into the teachings you want to go. For example, I would say one can live by the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, and the 5 basic Precepts without going into the difference between reincarnation and rebirth...because in the end, what difference will it make to a living person.
    Perhaps I should have said "if one is seriously interested in the Buddha,s teachings then it's an important distinction."
    In the suttas the second Noble Truth is expressed in terms of craving for rebirth, and Right View also refers to it. Also the distinction between re-incarnation and rebirth rests on an understanding of anatta and dependent arising, both of which are pivotal.

    I think it's one thing to properly understand these teachings and then decide they can be set aside as not relevant to one's daily practice. But it's another thing entirely to ignore or marginalise them, based on feelings of aversion.
    And that difference in our view goes back to the all or nothing at all approach to Buddhism.
    If today you thought rebirth was correct, but tomorrow found reincarnation was correct, how would it change how you live your life?

    I don't get your "all or nothing" comment. You asked about the distinction between rebirth and reincarnation and you've had several clear answers to the question. And I've explained why understanding the distinction is important.
    For some Buddhist schools the teachings on rebirth and kamma are central, for other schools these teachings are peripheral. But with the exception of secular Buddhism I don't know of any schools that reject these teachings.
    I don't see the relevance of what I personally believe or assume.
    Yes, there were several good responses.

  • *thump*thump*thump*
  • MaryAnne said:

    *thump*thump*thump*

    :-/
  • vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:

    vinlyn said:


    But what is interesting to me is how much arguing is done about the differences between 2 things that nobody can prove actually happen.

    If one is interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings then it's an important distinction. If one isn't interested then it isn't.
    I don't agree with that at all.

    For one thing, it depends how far into the teachings you want to go. For example, I would say one can live by the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, and the 5 basic Precepts without going into the difference between reincarnation and rebirth...because in the end, what difference will it make to a living person.
    Perhaps I should have said "if one is seriously interested in the Buddha,s teachings then it's an important distinction."
    In the suttas the second Noble Truth is expressed in terms of craving for rebirth, and Right View also refers to it. Also the distinction between re-incarnation and rebirth rests on an understanding of anatta and dependent arising, both of which are pivotal.

    I think it's one thing to properly understand these teachings and then decide they can be set aside as not relevant to one's daily practice. But it's another thing entirely to ignore or marginalise them, based on feelings of aversion.
    And that difference in our view goes back to the all or nothing at all approach to Buddhism.
    If today you thought rebirth was correct, but tomorrow found reincarnation was correct, how would it change how you live your life?

    I don't get your "all or nothing" comment. You asked about the distinction between rebirth and reincarnation and you've had several clear answers to the question. And I've explained why understanding the distinction is important.
    For some Buddhist schools the teachings on rebirth and kamma are central, for other schools these teachings are peripheral. But with the exception of secular Buddhism I don't know of any schools that reject these teachings.
    I don't see the relevance of what I personally believe or assume.
    Yes, there were several good responses.

    So you now understand the distinction between rebirth and re-incarnation?
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    MaryAnne said:

    *thump*thump*thump*

    Grrrrrrrr.
    :grr:
  • Oh btw @vinlyn I know u said four sentences, but I wanted there to be context, the part on the definition of birth and such is in the middle, it's just a few sentences.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited September 2013
    hermitwin said:

    how about
    abhinibbatto ; Reborn in another existence.

    Neither word is found in the suttas. Normally Jati or "birth" as it translates is used.

    Actually some suttas use punnabhava, "again becoming". But if we're talking about dependent origination, it's clear from the way the nidanas are defined that physical birth and death arise in dependence on bhava, which is existence / becoming in the 3 realms - so jati ( birth ) clearly means repeated birth in samsara.
    But repeated birth in samsara does not require a succession of bodies/personas.
    Time does nor arise uniquely among phenomena independently .
    Time arises with phassa/sparsa.
    Punnabhava requires ayidya. It does not require temporality.
  • As Buddhadasa says ' As long as we insist on seeing these events being played out in time we cannot grasp the subtlety of the Buddha's thinking. He saw that viewing time as the field instead of another aspect of avidya/avijja amounted to a major obstacle to understanding ' .
    riverflowoceancaldera207
  • Citta said:

    He saw that viewing time as the field instead of another aspect of avidya/avijja amounted to a major obstacle to understanding ' .

    I think it's more like a symptom that there is an obstacle to understanding... the obstacle being selectively applying the avidya principle instead of universally doing so. Poweful reminder that universal application includes time and the concepts of it. Thanks
  • _/\_
  • Citta said:


    But repeated birth in samsara does not require a succession of bodies/personas.
    Punnabhava requires ayidya. It does not require temporality.

    But isn't punnabhava expressed in terms of temporality? "Again becoming" implies repetition, which implies temporality.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited September 2013
    Punnabhava is experienced in terms of temporality to exactly the same degree that the self -sense is experienced. It is a result of avidya/avijja. Temporality arises with phassa/sparsa.
  • Citta said:

    Punnabhava is experienced in terms of temporality to exactly the same degree that the self -sense is experienced. It is a result of avidya/avijja. Temporality arises with phassa/sparsa.

    I still don't see how punabhava, again-becoming, can not be a temporal process.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited September 2013
    The nidanas do not arise within time. Time is one of the products of the nidanas. The sense of time is a result of Sankharas. It becomes subjectively a reality with phassa. The concept of the nidanas is not posited on a linear progression.
    I have seen an analogy made with the Big Bang..lets assume that the BBT is true.
    An objection often voiced is 'what happened before the Big Bang ..... and its a non sequitur.
    There was no 'before' ..time arose WITH the Big Bang. It did not precede it.
    Just so, time arises for the subject, with phassa.
    karmabluesJeffrey
  • Its when there is a drawing back from the Buddha's radical dharma that we a tendency to conflation with Vedantic ideas of reincarnation. The latter does not merely depend upon an atta..it depends on linear time. The Buddha undermined both at a stroke.
    Jeffreyupekka
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.