Buddhism Rebirth vs. Hindu Reincarnation

LydiaAnne

I get a little confused about the difference between the two. If anyone could give me a detailed explanation and or discuss the difference between the two, that would be great.

WallyB

Hindu Reincarnation = a soul leaves a physical body and enters into another physical body

Buddhist Rebirth = the results of kamma manifest as a new mind-&-body that still remains fettered in the cycles of suffering

person

An analogy I like to use is that reincarnation is like growing an apple tree from the cutting of a previous apple tree and rebirth as like growing an apple tree from a seed.

Invincible_summer

A popular analogy for rebirth is that it's like lighting one candle with another - one can't really say they're exactly the same or absolutely different, but there is a previous source.

AFAIK, reincarnation is pretty straight-forward - the soul leaves one's physical body and enters another.

caz

Hindu reincarnation=That of a permanent being that takes different forms varying on their karma.

Buddhist rebirth=Self is arisen due to aggregates and through deluded imprints. There is no permanent self, after death the self of this life dissolves and due to the force of self grasping ignorance in the mind we are compelled to take rebirth in one of the 6 unfree states depending on what karmic seeds ripen upon our death.

Jason

I get a little confused about the difference between the two. If anyone could give me a detailed explanation and or discuss the difference between the two, that would be great.

The usual distinction between the two is that reincarnation posits something permanent (i.e., a soul or self) which transmigrates from life to life, whereas rebirth is viewed as the continuation of a process—nothing 'transmigrates,' there are merely fleeting phenomena that condition other fleeting phenomena in the interdependent process we call life.

Dakini

Now I'm beginning to suspect that the Tibetan take on rebirth, which clearly is reincarnation, might come from Hindu influence.

misecmisc1

my understanding till now:

In Hinduism, as per the teachings of Lord Krishna - there is Self(Atman or Purusha) which is permanent, eternal and unchanging. the whole universe is composed of only two things: Matter and Consciousness i.e. Prakriti and Purusha. Matter is our physical body and anything perceived by our physical body is also matter. Consciousness(Atman or Jeevataman) is part of Universal Consciousness(Parmatman), though Atma is part of Partmatma but since Atma bears the karmic results of the actions performed by the body as the body when doing the activities has the notion of 'I' as doer , so the karmic results are to be faced by 'I' and this karmic cycle keeps on continuing the cycle of Maya, until a person reaches Self-realization, which is the meeting of Atman with Parmatma and getting merged into it and all karmic accounts getting cleared. Till Self-realization is realized, the Atma reincarnates into different bodies till the karmic account gets cleared. The path of Self-Realization is either through Self-knowledge for saints or through selfless service for lay people.

In Buddhism, as per the teachings of Buddha - there is no self (anatta), all phenonmena are unworthy of attachment as all phenomena are impermanent(anicca) so changes causing suffering(dukkha). DO explains all the phenomena arising due to arising of its conditions. So there is no entity and everything is devoid of any inherent existence. But due to law of karma, the karmic results have to be experienced but there is no experiencer, only the 6 types of consciousness doing their activities. So rebirth occurs due to craving for becoming, till Nirvana is realized.

Similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism - Both consider that our body is not self. Both consider the root cause of all delusion is ignorance - even though DO says ignorance is also originated due to its causes, but on a overall level DO says if something has to be considered as the main reason for Samsara, then that reason or the first step of DO is ignorance. Both says ignorance leads to attachment and aversion, and removal of ignorance leads to attachments and aversions getting removed. To attain Self-realization, ignorance has to be removed and to attain Nirvana, ignorance has to be removed.

WallyB

DO explains all the phenomena arising due to arising of its conditions. So there is no entity and everything is devoid of any inherent existence. But due to law of karma, the karmic results have to be experienced but there is no experiencer, only the 6 types of consciousness doing their activities. So rebirth occurs due to craving for becoming, till Nirvana is realized.

good try but not quite. active consciousness is not "karma". "just seeing", "just hearing", etc, are not karmic acts. action (karma) is not performed without attachment, which comes before becoming. attachment includes the idea of "self". therefore DO first explains how the doer (ego) arises and then explains how the ego hallucination does karma. in other words, without "self hallucination", there cannot be any karma that has suffering as a result. when there is no ego halluciation, the only action that can be performed is the karma that ends karma, i.e., the noble eightfold path

rebirth is the rebirth of the 'doer' or 'self-hallucination'. in the DO, buddha mentioned "birth" (jati) at the 11th link. there cannot be rebirth without self-hallucination. therefore rebirth with no experiencer (self-hallucination) is not what buddha taught

misecmisc1

DO explains all the phenomena arising due to arising of its conditions. So there is no entity and everything is devoid of any inherent existence. But due to law of karma, the karmic results have to be experienced but there is no experiencer, only the 6 types of consciousness doing their activities. So rebirth occurs due to craving for becoming, till Nirvana is realized.

good try but not quite. active consciousness is not "karma". "just seeing", "just hearing", etc, are not karmic acts. action (karma) is not performed without attachment, which comes before becoming. attachment includes the idea of "self". therefore DO first explains how the doer (ego) arises and then explains how the ego hallucination does karma. in other words, without "self hallucination", there cannot be any karma that has suffering as a result. when there is no ego halluciation, the only action that can be performed is the karma that ends karma, i.e., the noble eightfold path

rebirth is the rebirth of the 'doer' or 'self-hallucination'. in the DO, buddha mentioned "birth" (jati) at the 11th link. there cannot be rebirth without self-hallucination. therefore rebirth with no experiencer (self-hallucination) is not what buddha taught

My understanding of Buddha's teachings, the 4th aggregate of mental fabrications generates karma. the root cause is ignorance, which leads to attachment to view of self or 'I'. this further leads to other attachments and aversions. As per DO, ignorance leads to fabrications leads to ... leads to craving leads to clinging leads to becoming leads to birth leads to ageing. So craving on any level of either sensuality, becoming or non-becoming, leads to becoming which leads to birth. The cycle of Samsara continues due to ignorance. Because of this ignorance, ego or 'I' is created, even though there is no experiencer or no self having this ignorance. It is just process without entity. But since we believe what we see and what we see is what our mind's projects, so the duality of 'I' and Samsara comes. At Nirvana, when ignorance is removed, 'I' gets removed and consequently Samsara gets removed.

Rebirth not only occurs after death, it occurs every moment. No two consecutive moments are identical. You now and you after 1 minute are neither same nor different. Since there is no self or no entity anywhere, so no entity is getting rebirth. Rather the phenomena keeps on arising and ceasing - it is not that any object is in flux, but it is the flux itself.

Cinorjer

Now I'm beginning to suspect that the Tibetan take on rebirth, which clearly is reincarnation, might come from Hindu influence.

Another theory is that the heavy influence of native esoteric Bon and shamanism reacted with the Indian mystic Buddhism that made it to Tibet, producing a unique take on reincarnation.

Dakini

Another theory is that the heavy influence of native esoteric Bon and shamanism reacted with the Indian mystic Buddhism that made it to Tibet, producing a unique take on reincarnation.

Thanks.

caz

Now I'm beginning to suspect that the Tibetan take on rebirth, which clearly is reincarnation, might come from Hindu influence.

Another theory is that the heavy influence of native esoteric Bon and shamanism reacted with the Indian mystic Buddhism that made it to Tibet, producing a unique take on reincarnation.

This would be incorrect. Dont forget that Dharma comes from a lineage and the lineage of Dharma that came into Tibet that became more mainstream comes specifically from great places of Buddhist learning like Nalanda and other great Buddhist monastery's.

Cinorjer

Now I'm beginning to suspect that the Tibetan take on rebirth, which clearly is reincarnation, might come from Hindu influence.

Another theory is that the heavy influence of native esoteric Bon and shamanism reacted with the Indian mystic Buddhism that made it to Tibet, producing a unique take on reincarnation.

This would be incorrect. Dont forget that Dharma comes from a lineage and the lineage of Dharma that came into Tibet that became more mainstream comes specifically from great places of Buddhist learning like Nalanda and other great Buddhist monastery's.

A study of the history of Tibetan Buddhism is fascinating, and like most of history, the more we learn, the more we discover what we thought before is wrong. We know in broad terms from historical records there were two competing Dharma traditions fighting it out, sometimes literally. One from India and one from China. Eventually, mostly because of political forces, the Vajrayana tradition became dominate in Tibet. Vajrayana and Tantric Buddhism is defined by its mystic take on reincarnation and such.

caz

Now I'm beginning to suspect that the Tibetan take on rebirth, which clearly is reincarnation, might come from Hindu influence.

Another theory is that the heavy influence of native esoteric Bon and shamanism reacted with the Indian mystic Buddhism that made it to Tibet, producing a unique take on reincarnation.

This would be incorrect. Dont forget that Dharma comes from a lineage and the lineage of Dharma that came into Tibet that became more mainstream comes specifically from great places of Buddhist learning like Nalanda and other great Buddhist monastery's.

A study of the history of Tibetan Buddhism is fascinating, and like most of history, the more we learn, the more we discover what we thought before is wrong. We know in broad terms from historical records there were two competing Dharma traditions fighting it out, sometimes literally. One from India and one from China. Eventually, mostly because of political forces, the Vajrayana tradition became dominate in Tibet. Vajrayana and Tantric Buddhism is defined by its mystic take on reincarnation and such.

The Sarma is Indian in origin from the great monasteries, It will be slightly different from the Chinese but along the same route. Its Incorrect to say Bon was an influence on these schools looking at Bon today and as recorded by some of the great masters it is accorded little more status then mystical spirit conjuring and black magic today it much more resembles the Nyingma form of Buddhism. Its incorrect to assume Vajrayana Buddhism is solely Tibetan in origin its a lazy argument to make that it is a Bon knock off.

Amida

I think both the Hindu reincarnation and Buddhist rebirth can be likened unto seeds.

In Hinduism, the soul gathers together, with all its imprints of karma, as a seed, and leaves the body; this seed grows into another manifestation, due to the inherent information of karma, BUT the soul is *permanent.* The same could be said in Buddhism, that as the aggregates dissolve the seed of karmic information is released from them, and then takes on new form, according to its information, BUT that stream of information, carried in the seed, is not *permanent.* The Buddha said, "The kashta reed dies when it bears fruit." Likewise, the seed of karma releases from the aggregates upon death to arise again.

It comes down to Atman vs. Anatta, Self vs. No-Self, Permanent Soul vs. Non-permanent Soul.

Iñigo

In Vedanta (Hinduism) it is not the Soul (Atman) which reincarnates but the Subtle Body (Sukshma sharira)

Cinorjer

@caznamyaw

I'm well aware for some Tibetan Buddhists, Bon is seen as superstitious magic. Given the open warfare through the centuries between Buddhist and Bon camps, I'd expect to find plenty of Buddhist writings critical of their competition. However, there is a difference between political propaganda and common sense reality. When two traditions mix and mingle over centuries such as happened in Tibet, of course they influence each other. Buddhism influenced Bon as much as the other way. That's like saying Taoism had no influence on Buddhism in China. Preposterous.

By the way, at no time did I say "Vajrayana Buddhism is solely Tibetan in origin" or that it is a "Bon knock off". If I did it might be an invalid argument, but not a lazy one. That's called creating a strawman argument. You're better than that.

buddhist

Scripture gives the answer for it

Vacchagotta: And, Master Gotama, when a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?

Gotama: When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by craving. For on that occasion craving is its fuel.

Samyutta Nikaya IV.44.9

So , that was the answer ! This rebirth is in no way different from upanishadic hindu reincarnation (Actually ,there is no such religion as hindu per se , the word originally referred to to an ethnic stock of Indus) .

There is no difference at all.The original word used (punar janmah) is the same , the concept the same

One simply cannot explain rebirth/reincarnation on denying the atman .Earliest buddhism does not deny atman , but stresses that materialistic universe is without atman.In this respect , it did not differ much from similar sects in North India of its time like the charvakas , jainas and ajvikas and upanishadic netists

Dwell with the Soul as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as refuge

Samyutta Nikaya V.163 V.164

buddhist

Actually ,there is no such religion as hinduism per se , the word originally referred to to an ethnic stock of Indus who followed distinct but overwhelmingly related sects ,all of which were built on a common upanishadic base .Hinduism ceases to be a religion in the modern sense because it does not have a centralized institution and a sole scripture .This lenience gives us compatibility to include diverse elements , some as extreme as atheism , within a loose Hindu definition.In this sense , Hinduism is not a religion but a group of similar religions

buddhist

In Vedanta (Hinduism) it is not the Soul (Atman) which reincarnates but the Subtle Body (Sukshma sharira)

This is rather speculative.Vedanta talks of soul , not body ! Could your stand be seconded by any single quote from vedanta?

Lady_Alison

I don't understand the concept of a fixed soul in Buddhism...from my abrahamic understanding the soul is the whole part of the body that leaves or exits the body upon death. It is what causes the meat bag to be animated. It contains thoughts, feelings, emotions, experiences and growth...from my understanding it is not immortal or permanent but ETERNAL...not fixed or static. Not something that cannot be changed...infact, it is constantly changing...in essence it is the only part of you that is YOU.

how does Buddhism reconsile that?

caz

@caznamyaw

I'm well aware for some Tibetan Buddhists, Bon is seen as superstitious magic. Given the open warfare through the centuries between Buddhist and Bon camps, I'd expect to find plenty of Buddhist writings critical of their competition. However, there is a difference between political propaganda and common sense reality. When two traditions mix and mingle over centuries such as happened in Tibet, of course they influence each other. Buddhism influenced Bon as much as the other way. That's like saying Taoism had no influence on Buddhism in China. Preposterous.

By the way, at no time did I say "Vajrayana Buddhism is solely Tibetan in origin" or that it is a "Bon knock off". If I did it might be an invalid argument, but not a lazy one. That's called creating a strawman argument. You're better than that.

Whats more likely is Buddhism had a large Impact on Bon rather then the other way around because Bon as it is today looks more like a version of Buddhism, According to history The Bonpo's once practiced animal sacrifice and still did as recently as the late 20th century so it looks like there would still be two distinct streams of it, what was influenced by Buddhist monasticism and what was left as remnants of the old Bon folk shamanism. I dont suspect any mixing occured from the Buddhist side, Initially the Nyingma being the oldest school of Buddhism in Tibet where well looked after by the Dharma kings untill the time of Langdarma when it was virtually driven underground, During this point it may well have passed through Bonpo hands as apparently the Nyingma and Bonpo share some lineage masters with the Dzogchen tradition. However after the reintroduction of the Sarma schools into tibet which came straight from India there is pretty much no chance of the two having mixed not if you discount those who dual practiced the Old and new translations of Tantra.


Some people like to put more emphasis on Bon having been a major influence on Buddhist tradition in Tibet as I said earlier this argument is false generally. Not that you making such an argument of course.

Iñigo

In Vedanta (Hinduism) it is not the Soul (Atman) which reincarnates but the Subtle Body (Sukshma sharira)

This is rather speculative.Vedanta talks of soul , not body ! Could your stand be seconded by any single quote from vedanta?

It is in the Tattvabodha by Sri Shankaracharya.

Insights into Vedanata – Tattvabodha. Sri Ramakrishna Math. ISBN 8178232294. See page 139 – Title: The Subtle Body. They use the name "Suksma Sariram", it is "born of past actions."

Incidently I liked and agree with your above comments. As you correctly point out Hinduism is not a single religion, but consists of many schools/sects. Also there is no major difference in the concept of reincarnation/rebirth between Vedanta and Theravada Buddhism except anatta and the concept of God/Brahman etc is obviously different. Nonetheless the concept of Samsara and Karma is very similar in my opinion and to answer the OP one would need to specify which school of thought in Hinduism to arrive at a more precise answer.

That Atman does not recinarnate because Atman is Brahman in the non-dual schools and so it is actionless, eternal and pure. Hence it is not defiled by action (karma) which binds the jIva in the cycle of rebirth.

Metta

Invincible_summer

I don't understand the concept of a fixed soul in Buddhism...from my abrahamic understanding the soul is the whole part of the body that leaves or exits the body upon death. It is what causes the meat bag to be animated. It contains thoughts, feelings, emotions, experiences and growth...from my understanding it is not immortal or permanent but ETERNAL...not fixed or static. Not something that cannot be changed...infact, it is constantly changing...in essence it is the only part of you that is YOU.

how does Buddhism reconsile that?

I don't understand your question - Buddhism doesn't have a concept of a "fixed soul."

person

I don't understand the concept of a fixed soul in Buddhism...from my abrahamic understanding the soul is the whole part of the body that leaves or exits the body upon death. It is what causes the meat bag to be animated. It contains thoughts, feelings, emotions, experiences and growth...from my understanding it is not immortal or permanent but ETERNAL...not fixed or static. Not something that cannot be changed...infact, it is constantly changing...in essence it is the only part of you that is YOU.

how does Buddhism reconsile that?

My take on it is like a drop of water. There is no container for the 5 skandha's that make up an individual, they simply come together and I think? its simply through the force of the karma created by the misconception of there being a container that its held together (don't quote me on that.) The concept of 'self' gets placed on that drop of water afterwards by the mind.

There is something similar to a soul in terms of Buddha nature in mahayana and I think in therevada there is what is unborn. So it shouldn't be thought of as nihilism.

Iñigo

I agree with you Person.
Based on my present understanding of Theravada I would say your understanding is skillfull. What is then required of us is to bring the cycle of karma to an end and hence no more birth.

For Lady_Alison's question, the Buddha taught that there was no fixed self identity (anatta, translated as no-soul) because believing we have a fixed identity is a wrong view because it binds "us" to suffering through karma. The Buddha only wanted to end suffering and remained silent on the issue of soul when asked directly if a soul existed or not, for this specific reason imo.