Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Reincarnation; why I believe.
hermitwin
Veteran
Reincarnation; why I believe.
My intuition tells me that existence does not end when I die.
I cant fathom my consciousness becoming nothingness.
Therefore, I exist in some form beyond death.
By extension, some kind of rebirth will take place after death.
This is what I feel in my gut.
As for the arguments;
1. Identical twins dont have the same personality.
2. Spiritual master eg dalai lama, ajahn chah, etc dont reject it.
3. The difference in babies' condition, place of birth, parent's
disposition & financial/political position means that
you can be born into priviledge or poverty.
How do you explain the difference/injustice?
Lastly, we are so used to using our mind to investigate things
in a 'scientific' manner. Yet we know that very often our mind
is unable to see the truth.
We also find that people in the Eastern world has a much easier
time accepting reincarnation.
Perhaps, its good sometimes to give the brain a rest and use a
different set of 'eyes' to consider something as subtle/complex
as reincarnation.
My intuition tells me that existence does not end when I die.
I cant fathom my consciousness becoming nothingness.
Therefore, I exist in some form beyond death.
By extension, some kind of rebirth will take place after death.
This is what I feel in my gut.
As for the arguments;
1. Identical twins dont have the same personality.
2. Spiritual master eg dalai lama, ajahn chah, etc dont reject it.
3. The difference in babies' condition, place of birth, parent's
disposition & financial/political position means that
you can be born into priviledge or poverty.
How do you explain the difference/injustice?
Lastly, we are so used to using our mind to investigate things
in a 'scientific' manner. Yet we know that very often our mind
is unable to see the truth.
We also find that people in the Eastern world has a much easier
time accepting reincarnation.
Perhaps, its good sometimes to give the brain a rest and use a
different set of 'eyes' to consider something as subtle/complex
as reincarnation.
0
Comments
Can you fathom your consciousness before birth?
1. Why would twins have the same personality? They are subject to different stimuli, so their personalities are shaped differently. Interestingly enough, they can have very similar personalities despite this.
2. Yup, but do you think a person who doesn't believe in rebirth would ever take Buddhism seriously enough to become a spiritual master?
3. Then all the people who were born into poor conditions deserved it?
Thanks for sharing.
One additional point.
Many westerners came from Judeo-Christian Background.
They have rejected the god that they cant see & touch.
I believe there is a sense of " I didnt reject the imaginary
god only to embrace another imaginery concept of reincarnation.
No Thank you."
The children of these people, who acquired wealth via plunder & violence, were born into priviledge.
So what is this "injutice" being referred to?
Most wealth & priviledge is acquire via greed. What did the Buddha say about greed?
:coffee:
Even my stone-cold Atheist dad surprised me one day by saying "You better believe we come back. I know I was a Native American in a past life." Very surprising because he is not the kind of guy to ever think about things like that. He said it so suddenly too. Upon reflection he has always been fascinated by American history and has a huge respect for nature. Curing deer hides "the way the indian's did" (it involved deer brains, smoke from rotting logs, and me gagging), making flint arrowheads and bows, sewing mocassins. He used to make baskets and beaded things, always concerned with accuracy and trying to use only materials that would have been available to Native American's. Even when we walked in the woods he'd tell me what the indian's ate, how they lived, how they walked quietly, how they tracked. His first horse was an appaloosa because that's a breed created by the Nez Perce tribe. His holding knowledge on Native American's is huge, and I fully believe if he didn't have us kids around he would have ended up becoming a crazy mountain man who lives off the land, wearing animal skins.... probably somewhere out west. But, he's secretive about his fascination because only us kids have witnessed his obsession with his hobbies and their accuracy. I asked him if he remembered anything from a past life and he gave me a dirty look because that's mushy talk, lol.
Your dad's wiser than you think.
Listen to him.
About 1 year later my mom wanted another cat to keep company for our female cat Xena who was still showing signs of grieving from losing her companion. We all expected to get a kitten. Something new that wasn't an orange tabby cat. Well some how my dad spotted an orange tabby cat that was 1 year old and looked exactly like Kitty. The face was spot on. We wanted a younger one, but my dad wanted this one because he claimed it was a reincarnation of Kitty.
It really looked just like him, it was as if you were staring Kitty right in the face as if he came back. It was the same story too. No one had picked up this cat for a year. The person in charge of the adoptions was so surprised that my dad wanted to pick him, because he was one year old and for some reason no one wanted him. He was even picked already and returned by another woman. So my dad ended up adopting him, and he has been with us since. Every other time I look at him I really do feel like he could be Kitty's reincarnation.
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/
I could not find one reference to reincarnation and only one about rebirth. However,the rebirth here was psychological rather than post-mortem.
Probably best to not include Ajahn Chah in supporting your veiwpoint.
What makes one think belief in reincarnation will motivate practise?
In my opinion, it is non belief in rebirth that motivates practise.
In my opinion, when life is seen to be impermanent & unsatisfactory then there is no choice but to let go & take refuge in not-self & emptiness.
If we study the lives of the arahants, their motivation had little if anything to do with rebirth but, instead, they sought an end to unsatisfactoriness & disillusionment.
:-/
1.yes, I can. If I exist after I die, I existed before I was born.
Twins are genetically exact copies, I expect them to be the same.
But I know a pair of twins; one is gay, the other is not.
I beleive you cant choose to be gay or not.
Of course that is another can of worms.
Yes, I believe you dont have to be buddhist to be enlightened.
A qualified yes. I dont want to be insensitive. People can be
borned into terrible situations eg child of rape. But the fact is
we are born into different worlds.
DD, I beleieve karma is personal ie my father's karma is not my karma.
My opinion is you are placing the cause in the wrong place.
This is why, when rape occurs in the justice system, it is the rapist & not the victim that is sent to prison.
The Buddha himself did not blame the victim. For example, the Dhammapada states there are innocent victims:
:-/
I just dont see how a connection can even be made.
There is a passage in the Pali Text which hopefully someone can point me to, where he flat out states that thinking and dwelling about rebirth is pointless. It does seem to me that believing or not in rebirth has nothing to do with suffering.
People have always & will always ask the question why.
I do not know better than any of you, esp DD.
But that is how I answer these questions.
And as disagreeable as it may seem, it is part of Buddhism.
Perhaps a part of Buddhism that has no place in the west.
I believe the sutta that says it is not relevant to the
end suffering, are reffering to questions about the beginning
of the universe.
Whether these views or their opposites are held, there is still REBIRTH, there is old age, there is death, and grief, lamentation, suffering, sorrow, and despair...I have not spoken to these views because they do not conduce to an absence of passion, to tranquility, and Nirvana. And what have I explained?
'Suffering have I explained, the cause of suffering, the destruction of suffering, and the path that leads to the destruction of suffering have I explained. For this is useful.'"
But to say that it was your good kamma to be born into a wealthy family implies that it was your good kamma in the past that made them, and by extension you, wealthy, not theirs. This, however, completely destroys the way kamma acts as a moral agency in the suttas, i.e., they're reaping the rewards of your good kamma so that you can reap it too, making their life and their actions not their own but simply a conduit for the ripening of your kamma.
Of course, you could make the argument that you past good deeds led you to be born to parents who are hard working, but how do you find such parents after death? This can't be overlooked. And again, you'd still have to answer the question, How much of their social status in life is due to their actions? Maybe it's just luck that someone gets wealthy parents. There is apparent chaos/randomness in the universe, after all.
Because randomness, at least at some level, can't be ruled out, it's difficult to say with any real degree of certainty that every event you experience in your life is completely determined by a previous cause, and that cause being your past actions. It also doesn't take into consideration the present actions of others that are creating these events, making their actions arguably your responsibility and not theirs if you insist on saying you being born into them is the result of your past actions.
None of this is strong enough to show that you're argument is wrong, but I think it at least goes to show some weak points in such an argument. It wouldn't hurt to think more about it and see where such things lead when taken to their logical conclusion. I find that can often help make arguments better (by filling them in) as much as it can show them to be unsatisfactory. This argument completely disregards the fact that genetic material isn't the sole determining factor in the development of an individual's personality. As ShiftPlusOne pointed out, they're subject to different stimuli, and because they're subject to separate experiences, their personalities are shaped differently. Even strict materialists deny that personality is entirely encoded in our genes and not influences by external stimuli, so this argument is also weak in my opinion. As far as arguments go, appeal to authority isn't a very strong one in general.
Critics of the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth say that if there is no soul, only a changing stream of mental energy, then there could be no identity and thus to talk of a person being reborn or experiencing the results of good or bad actions done in the past, is meaningless. However this criticism fails to understand the phenomenon of identity in change. Even within a single life we can notice a person change, sometimes quite dramatically, and yet still be able to recognise them as the same person. This is possible because different aspects of the person changes at different velocities. For example, the complexion and amount of wrinkles on a person's face may change with age while the general shape of the face changes little. Again, a person may change their beliefs while holding them with the same intensity as they held their former ones or perhaps retain the same beliefs but in a more moderate way than before. To use a simile - the Ganges River is changing every moment and over the centuries its width, its course, the quantity and quality of the water it contains have all changed and yet it can still be recognised as the same river. Thus the idea of a dynamic personality does not contradict the idea of identity.
Other critics claim that rebirth was not a part of the Buddha's original teachings or that the Buddha copied the idea of rebirth from the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation. Both these claims are contradicted by the evidence. The doctrine of rebirth is an integral part of the earliest records of the Buddha's teachings as preserved in the Pali Tipitaka and there is no evidence that it is a later interpolation. An examination of pre-Buddhist Hindu literature shows that the idea of reincarnation or rebirth was not widely accepted. It is not mentioned in either the Vedas or the Brahmana Sutras. Several Upansads teach it while others condemn it as heresy. So the idea was apparently current before the Buddha but it was not widely accepted and it was certainly not a part of orthodox Hinduism, something that only happened much later, probably as a result of Buddhist influence.
i am bat shit skeptical about reincarnation because it asserts a soul of some kind.
the buddha said there was no-self. thus no death. thus no immortality.
and from what i've experienced, consciousness is clear and empty as a blue sky in the summer.
here's food for thought:
how can something become nothing and how can nothing become something?
Here, consciousness isn't seen as a static things going from life to life, but simply as one link in a complex causal chain, i.e., moments of consciousness arising and ceasing in rapid succession, with the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness due to the presence of craving (kind of like 'spooky action at a distance' where two entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, even over great distances). It's better to think of it as a transmission of information rather than the transmigration of some thing.
Thus, there can theoretically be continuity between lives without having to posit some type of permanent, unchanging consciousness that travels from life to life. That's why the term vinnanasota or 'stream of consciousness' is often used to describe the flow of conscious experience, even when presented within the context of rebirth.
Of course, one is free to reject this theory of rebirth as much as the theory that a soul or self travels from life to life, and there are interpretations of the suttas that can support a rejection of all such theories in favour of a single life approach, which I personally don't have a problem with. My only motivation here is to illustrate that the concept of rebirth doesn't necessarily assert a soul of some kind, even though it does, by necessity, assert a type of continuity that transcends a single birth and death.
or rather the information imprinted onto consciousness?
Due to craving, there is clinging (upadana); and due clinging, there is becoming (bhava). Becoming is a mental process, which arises due to the presence of clinging in the mind with regard to the five-clinging aggregates, and acts as a condition for the birth (jati) of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta). But according to those who accept the idea of postmortem rebirth, this process doesn't necessarily cease with death, and isn't just a metaphor. (If you're interested, I suggest checking out Thanissaro's book, The Paradox of Becoming.)
According to the teachings on dependent co-arising (paticcasamupadda) — a process of conditionality that's understood to occur moment to moment and over multiple lifetimes (non-literalists simply disregard the 'three-life' model, e.g., see Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination) — if there are sufficient conditions present, those conditions with inevitably result in future births.
One way to look at it is that a casual process can be self-sustaining, with causes creating effects, and effect acting as causes, creating feedback loops. And if you admit the possibility of immaterial causes and not just material ones, then the continuation of said process isn't limited by or to a single material body. And if you believe Bertrand Russell, the more we understand about matter (i.e., energy), the more the word itself becomes "no more than a conventional shorthand for stating causal laws concerning events" (An Outline of Philosophy).
Maybe we should have a competition...Let's settle this thing once and for all!
Let's tally up (after, say, 2 or 3 weeks) the number number of posts in the "Reincarnation; why I believe" thread and then compare this to the number of posts in the "Reincarnation; why I don't believe" thread. Whichever has more posts at the end of the pre-determined time wins.
So...thanks DD for the 4 points you gave to our team. :vimp:
Metta,
Guy
If one wishes to gain enlightenment & ending suffering, thinking and dwelling about rebirth is pointless.
If one is not committed to gaining enlightenment & ending suffering, thinking and dwelling about rebirth is not pointless.
Anti-rebirth here: Pro-rebirth here: Please note, the pro-rebirth view sides with effuents [asava: toxic mental pollution] and results in acquisitions [upadi: attachment; burdens]. The pro-rebirth views promotes non-harming & was the same as the pre-Buddhist beliefs of Indian culture. The Buddha has said unambiguously in this discourse rebirth view is not a factor of the transcendent supramundane (noble) path.
With love Jen
You'll find very comfortable accommodations in our re-education camps, I promise.
My view is this term "vinnanasota" is found in one obscure passage in the scriptures and does not have the meaning you are implying.
The Buddha spoke in countless discourses any kind of consciousness, either gross or subte, is IMPERMANENT.
The sense of continuity we have is rooted in memory.
Memory is not consciousness. The Buddha taught consciousness is mere sense awareness, namely, six kinds functioning thru the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind.
The Buddha taught there is no arising of consciousness without a sense organ.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html
A lot of monks claim they literally know it, like many Mahayana monks, but for example also the arahant Ajahn Maha Bua who literally says this is what the Buddha taught and it is important to know.
Belief in rebirth is not necessary to be a good Buddhist, of course.
The only thing you have to do is keep the matter open.
Metta,
Sabre
Besides from the realizations some have had that go beyond arguments, it is indeed also quite obvious (at least to me) if you look around you. People are born with a personality. Children with the same parents and upbringing can be totally different, already from a very early age. Also people have obvious talents. Some are very intelligent, others not so much. Some get easily upset, some are easily bored. Some are great artists or musicians. Where does this come from? Is it just genes? I don't think so. How can genes make somebody a good musician? How could Beethoven automatically play the piano like that when he was just 7 years old?
Also a lot of people have past life memories which can actually be checked. A lot of good research has been carried out on this subject. I am reading work by Ian Stevenson on this matter. If you read it you'll be amazed how accurate he is not to be biased when researching this. There is also a documentary called "the boy who lived before". It is not a really convincing case of past life memory, but if you look at it it'll at least make you see the boy is not just making it up for fun.
This 'force' called life.. how else to explain it than the way the Buddha did? Can one life with so many aspects to it just come out of nothing? Don't think so. At what moment does a fetus become conscious and what causes it? The most logical explanation I can come up with is actual rebirth, however strange it may sound to some.
I also used to be quote agnostic in this, but if you think about it at least it becomes a possibility I would say.
Of course, again, to just believe it because others say so would be stupid. You've got a point there. That way you could start to believe anything.
Metta,
Sabre
Unlike Sati, I don't hold the view that it's "this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another." Nor does Theravada. Instead of positing some type of permanent, unchanging consciousness that travels from life to life, rebirth is described in terms of moments of dependently arisen consciousness arising, persisting for a brief period, and then ceasing in a successive causal stream, a process that doesn't necessarily cease at death.
As I said before, one is free to reject this theory of rebirth as much as the theory that a soul or self travels from life to life, and there are interpretations of the suttas that can support a rejection of all such theories in favour of a single life approach, which I personally don't have a problem with. My only motivation here is to illustrate that the concept of rebirth doesn't necessarily assert a soul of some kind, even though it does, by necessity, assert a type of continuity that transcends a single birth and death.
I tried for some years to be one and I even thought I knew some things about previous lives.
(for instance as a kid I would never wear shoes in the house and would practically always sit with crossed legs; which I thought pointed at an Asian previous life)
But the idea just didn’t stick.
But even when I believed (or at least tried to leave it open) I always thought there was a problem with the concept. I find it difficult to explain.
The point is I would guess there’s a difference between “a consciousness” and “my consciousness”.
When my actions and cravings produce “a consciousness” and this other consciousness experiences the result of my actions that’s a shame. But it is not a problem. It would be like getting drunk and knowing some other person would have a headache the next day. Sad but acceptable.
When my actions and cravings produce “my consciousness” in another body, that is a problem. It would be like getting drunk and knowing I will have a headache the next day.
But, when this is the case, what is transferred is more than just karma; it is something that can be called me. And what - in Buddhist terms – would be that “me’?
^^ well listening to somebody who was so say, liberated and enlightened might help a little don't you think?