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.
Rejecting rebirth is very far from rejecting "all" the teachings of the Buddha.
Its rejecting a good portion of it all Buddha's teachings are interlinking. You reject rebirth you also reject actions and there effects, You reject actions and there effects you reject the path, You reject the path and you reject enlightenment.
No, you don't reject cause-and-effect just by rejecting rebirth. Cause-and-effect operate on a daily basis. The OP is not rejecting the path, actions, or cause-and-effect.
This forum gets OP's on this topic every few months, when newbies join. The spirit on the forum has always been flexible and welcoming toward those who don't accept rebirth, no matter the opinion of a few individual members who disagree. It's in keeping with the Buddha's teachings to test the teachings, so it's ok to reject rebirth until experience or meditation or some other eventuality might motivate someone to change their position.
However, again I state that there are respected Dharma leaders who maintain an agnostic attitude toward rebirth, and like it or not, they're part of the Dharma community, they're here to stay. Funny how some people say there's no dogma in Buddhism, and yet people who don't accept rebirth right off the bat are made to feel unwelcome.
Those who would reject a new member for not believing in rebirth can discuss it with Brian or Lincoln. This forum was created for newbies (see Brian's statement in the "NewBuddhist" category), so as long as they're here in the spirit of respectful engagement and genuine inquiry, they're welcome, and they're NewBuddhists. Capiche?
I am glad you are aware that the suttas supports literal rebirth.
i did not infer that or deny that. i am simply aware the suttas support the reality that karma (action) bears result. for example, if it is believed certain kinds of karma (action) can result in a literal post-mortem hell or, alternately, here-&-now psychological torment, both beliefs are the same because both beliefs lead to the same result, namely, the abandoning of harmful karma & the development of non-harmful karma
this is why in the Kalama Sutta & elsewhere, Buddha taught both ways
thus your gladness is misplaced & your misrepresentations of my view is unwarranted
The suttas you quoted obviously talks about post-mortem rebirth: "with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world."
Kalama Sutta was addressed to a group of unbelievers and it is not always that Buddha talks 'both ways'. In fact I think that was the only case.
No, you don't reject cause-and-effect just by rejecting rebirth. Cause-and-effect operate on a daily basis. The OP is not rejecting the path, actions, or cause-and-effect.
This forum gets OP's on this topic every few months, when newbies join. The spirit on the forum has always been flexible and welcoming toward those who don't accept rebirth, no matter the opinion of a few individual members who disagree. It's in keeping with the Buddha's teachings to test the teachings, so it's ok to reject rebirth until experience or meditation or some other eventuality might motivate someone to change their position.
However, again I state that there are respected Dharma leaders who maintain an agnostic attitude toward rebirth, and like it or not, they're part of the Dharma community, they're here to stay. Funny how some people say there's no dogma in Buddhism, and yet people who don't accept rebirth right off the bat are made to feel unwelcome.
Those who would reject a new member for not believing in rebirth can discuss it with Brian or Lincoln. This forum was created for newbies (see Brian's statement in the "NewBuddhist" category), so as long as they're here in the spirit of respectful engagement and genuine inquiry, they're welcome, and they're NewBuddhists. Capiche?
@Dakini its about making sure people aren't coming in already predisposed to rejecting something that is basically the reason for Buddha seeking Liberation, Wrong views are not fine they are damaging to Dharma practice if people come in with an open mind they will discover that Rebirth also has resembling mind states as well. Buddhism being a religion of the mind you eventually discover that this human life is simply an appearance to mind as well, if you have trouble accepting Buddha's teachings you put them on the self and make an effort to understand them however out of hand rejecting them as some do will result in little to no results from their practice.
First, there is a huge difference between "not believing" and "rejecting".
Second, even if someone rejects rebirth, what gives someone the right to say they are not Buddhist? As I explained before the term "Buddhist" doesn't say a lot anyway. If it says anything, it is someone who on the path. And for being on the path it doesn't matter what points of view you start out with about life after death. A big part of our suffering can be seen and dealt with right here in this life.
I think everybody who benefits from the Buddha's teaching is of course welcome on this board and also welcome to call themselves a Buddhist, if they want to. Also, as Thich Nhat Hahn wisely said: "In Buddhism, all views are wrong views." Think about that one.
With metta, Sabre
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I don't think he's speaking about rejecting, or even more important, rejecting all the basic teachings. he's just wondering what would be his position of he can't bring himself to a point where he believes it. And in Buddhism- he's not alone.
What really matters is not whether we believe or don’t believe. Ultimately we don’t know anything anyway.
But I do think it is essential to be honest with ourselves. We should really figure out what it is we believe in our hearts. We shouldn’t be afraid of facing our doubts, nor of expressing them.
Practice is not about keeping things polite or about avoiding (inner or outer) confrontations. So if someone tells us he doesn’t believe in rebirth that’s a good thing.
Much ado about nothing, IMHO. The debate in Buddhism (and this thread) is just what the OP says, "potentially" divisive. It can only become divisive if ego clings to view. Clinging to view and dividing the sangha aren't recommended in Buddhism, the last I heard.
There seems to be a potentially divisive debate in Western Buddhism on whether or not being a Buddhism neccesitates a belief in Rebirth.
Much ado about nothing, IMHO. The debate in Buddhism (and this thread) is just what the OP says, "potentially" divisive. It can only become divisive if ego clings to view. Clinging to view and dividing the sangha aren't recommended in Buddhism, the last I heard.
There seems to be a potentially divisive debate in Western Buddhism on whether or not being a Buddhism neccesitates a belief in Rebirth.
I agree. As I've mentioned before, I understand rebirth to signify the Buddha's observation that there's a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results — one that doesn't necessarily end at death — and kamma to represent the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience. And since the purpose of these teachings, in my opinion, is to encourage one to develop awareness of casual patterns in life involving our intentional actions of body, speech, and mind with a soteriological eye towards reshaping our experience of the present in ways that limit and even eliminate suffering, I'm ambivalent to the debate about post-mortem as a whole.
Just to clarify. My first question was that - a question. It was not a statement. I was wondering how to answer/discuss the consequences and meaning of karma - rebirth with others.
I think there may be a challenge in introducing this to Western practioners.
I think there may be a challenge in introducing this to Western practioners.
It's only a challenge if those being introduced to Buddhist theory are supposed to swallow it hook, line and sinker. Thankfully, even within Buddhism, there is no such requirement. In fact, it is expected that you question what is being taught and believe only what you are comfortable with. For me, that openness was a big factor in my willingness to explore the teachings is more detail.
AFAIK, the dalai lama even encourages people to stick to their own religion while they research Buddhist teaching. I find that very refreshing.
Those who expect full acceptance from the start need to understand that you *cannot make* someone believe -- it's a process, obviously.
For all the supposed tolerance in Buddhism, the number of traditionalists and dogmatic thinkers is astounding, from what I can tell, and sadly, he attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong" seems to be as common as in other belief systems.
All I can say is the farther along the path the less important that the belief in literal Rebirth is to me.
Beliefs are based on past conditioning and future projections. To live in harmony with the present moment requires acceptance and detachment. It does not require beliefs.
The present has no past to project as a future, so there is no expectation. Whatever appears is always new, surprising, obvious, and exactly what is needed. Inter-dependently originated, without dualistic separation. This is the reality of what is. Beliefs just detract from what reality is. Without projecting a future, what happens to attachment?
There is wisdom in not needing to know and not having to project. In other words beliefs are optional.
You don't believe in rebirth, but rebirth believes in you. J/K
I'd like to think that rebirth is a very advanced thing to understand and it is unnecessary to understand it for a buddhist to lead a good and happy life. So I think it's ok that you don't believe. There are plenty of other Buddhist teachings that can be easily tested and will be very beneficial for you.
Funny, my belief in rebirth (since I was old enough to understand what death was) is what drew me to Buddhism, not the other way around! To me it's a supremely simple concept that makes total sense.
I was reborn,I remember being an old white man in the 70's I remeber going to something called an AA meeting,and I wore a green coat also the house was kinda old rundown and in the getto,I always wondered what AA was when i was 3 and up.
its weird now im 26 and I cant drink alcohol (im allergic to it)
The suttas you quoted obviously talks about post-mortem rebirth: "with the break-up of the body [kaya], after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world."
not necessarily. your assertions have already been addressed at the link below. as was previously explained, the word for body, "kaya", means "group". there is nama kaya & rupa kaya or, in brief, the group of aggregates. thus at the break up of the group of aggregates that comprise of a certain karma, there is reappearance in a karmic result, such as heaven (happiness) & hell (suffering).
now i am not asserting my explanation is the only explanation but i am refuting, without any doubt, your claim about what the quote "obviously" talks about :rolleyes:
the reality of karmic result in your sutta quote is always true. but when & where it happens is your personal interpretation of words ['body' and 'death'] that can have two meanings
Kalama Sutta was addressed to a group of unbelievers and it is not always that Buddha talks 'both ways'.
in the scriptures, there are occassions where Buddha kept silent when he understood the listener/s would not become a believer. but this was not the case with the Kalamas, who were believers given they became believers
Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. We go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May the Blessed One remember us as lay followers who have gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life."
Xabir. have you actually all of the scriptures to make such an assertion? i trust the relevent phrase is a stock phrase in the scriptures. interestingly, it also appears in MN 60 but no claim to the actuality of post-mortem rebirth is made in MN 60
please note the words 'para loka' means 'other worlds' rather than 'next world'. that said, although MN 60 includes the stock phrase, MN 60 only makes claims to the actuality of 'other worlds' (hell, heaven, hungry ghost, animal, etc), karma and causality
all the best
Because there actually is the other worlds, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no other worlds' is his wrong view
Because there actually is action (karma), the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next action' is his wrong view.
Because there actually is causality, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no causality' is his wrong view.
With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no other worlds, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the other worlds, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.
One should have faith in the Buddha and his three knowledges:
1. The knowledge that the Buddha recollects His past lives, 2. the knowledge capable of seeing the decease and rebirth of beings, and 3. the knowledge capable of eradicating defilements.
Why? Because having faith is one of the strengths required for development (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Strengths ), plus having the view of an afterlife constitutes Right View (the foremost factor of the Eightfold Path which leads to awakening), while the view that there is no afterlife constitutes Wrong View.
There is no next world,... no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.
MN 60 Apaṇṇaka Sutta:
Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he is says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma.
Again, one cannot attain the noble path of stream-entry while maintaining a wrong view which contradicts the arahants who know the next world."
3. thru becoming, there is birth (eg. the man have the status & self-identity of being that woman's husband)
4. thru birth, there is aging-&-death (eg. loss of that status & self-identity when the woman leaves her husband or when the woman dies)
5. thru aging & death come sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair (eg. sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair due to the loss or death of a man's wife that he regards & identifies as "my dear beloved wife")
This interpretation of dependent origination isn't consistent with the way the nidanas are actually described in the suttas. See MN9 and SN12.2 for example.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
There seems to be a potentially divisive debate in Western Buddhism on whether or not being a Buddhism neccesitates a belief in Rebirth. Some say the idea of karma makes no sense in its absence. Thoughts?
For me, personally, I'd have to have the definition of "rebirth" made more clear. I'm sure I heard the 14th Dalai Lama say he is not the same individual as Thubten Gyatso. He seems to share a few memories and has likely taken on some of his personality just through familiarity as well as the essence but they are not the same person, in my honest opinion.
Karma is just causation... The way things go. If I step into a busy street and get hit by a car, it isn't my karma from a past life catching up with me, it's my karma from not being mindful right now.
From my view, even if the certain individuals do not reincarnate, since there is no true seperation we would all kind of be reincarnations of the entire universe.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I know it isn't important to understand how past or future "lives" work or even if it's true but it is kind of fun to speculate.
This isn't something I got from the Dharma, it is just something I've thought about... It may even mix Hinduism in there, kinda, sorta... However, if I had to dictate the way of reincarnation, I would have the whole split into all aspects and then have each of those aspects reincarnate until all aspects become awakened to our true nature through different "lifetimes".
Ok, now I'm just killing time before I have to go. I'm actually kind of excited to be here.
The suttas you quoted obviously talks about post-mortem rebirth: "with the break-up of the body [kaya], after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world."
not necessarily.....the reality of karmic result in your sutta quote is always true. but when & where it happens is your personal interpretation of words ['body' and 'death'] that can have two meanings
The passage above could not be clearer, and the words "body" and "death" simply mean "body" and "death".
There are many similar descriptions of how karma works in the suttas. Here is one from the Samannaphala Sutta:
Recollection of Past Lives "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance......Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.'
Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. "
For all the supposed tolerance in Buddhism, the number of traditionalists and dogmatic thinkers is astounding, from what I can tell, and sadly, he attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong" seems to be as common as in other belief systems.
People can be quite dogmatic in their disbeliefs too.
First, there is a huge difference between "not believing" and "rejecting".
I disagree. Disbelief is based on rejection.
Ok, you can disagree.
But not believing is an inability to belief anything, simply because one does not have the right evidence or faith for it. But it doesn't reject something as being impossible, nor is it based on that.
Huge difference.
Or in the sentence: "I do not belief superman can fly.", is obviously not the same as "I reject superman can fly". The second doesn't leave any room for doubt while the first does.
Or in the sentence: "I do not belief superman can fly.", is obviously not the same as "I reject superman can fly". The second doesn't leave any room for doubt while the first does.
I think they're very similar. To take another example, an atheist rejects the idea of God so an athiest disbelieves in God.
So there is a continuum: disbelief.....agnostic/don't know.......belief
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
An agnostic doesn't believe. An agnostic is open to possible existence.
I think they're very similar. To take another example, an atheist rejects the idea of God so an athiest disbelieves in God. Sabre that there
...
So there is a continuum: disbelief.....agnostic/don't know.......belief
Well, I think you're sort of changing what you said. Before you sort equated disbelief and rejection.
I don't believe in ghosts because I have insufficient evidence they exist. But I am open-minded about it. I can be convinced.
Same with aliens.
I personally believe in God, but have no concrete evidence of that.
So now that you are changing your POV to saying there is a continuum...well, that's different than equating disbelief and rejecting, and closer to reality.
I think they're very similar. To take another example, an atheist rejects the idea of God so an athiest disbelieves in God. So there is a continuum: disbelief.....agnostic/don't know.......belief
Well, I think you're sort of changing what you said. Before you sort equated disbelief and rejection.
I said disbelief is based on rejection ( of an idea or possibility ). I think the examples you're giving are more towards an agnostic position, ie not currently having a positive belief in something but being open to the possibility.
I suspect this distinction often gets lost in debates about rebirth.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited May 2012
I think this kind of open communication is good and this is actually the way it's always been... Not only between the various schools but within them as well.
I have my own ideas about reincarnation and they don't conform exactly with any doctrine except my own if I were to bother having any faith in them.
This is why I will always be non-sectarian.
I don't think having faith in reincarnation is the same as having faith in the Dharma because to have faith in the Dharma means it makes sense and we can see it working so we trust it.
In my honest opinion, Buddha didn't want us to take his word on faith, he wanted us to have faith that we would understand the truth within us that he could only point to.
Some say the idea of karma makes no sense in its absence. Thoughts?
It does make sense in the present moment. Karma can be seen in this lifetime and in the here and now. So one does not need to wait until the next lifetime to see the results of karma. Makes more sense than believing what cannot be proven. We can start with what we know and perhaps meditation can help us realize what we don't.
Some say the idea of karma makes no sense in its absence. Thoughts?
It does make sense in the present moment. Karma can be seen in this lifetime and in the here and now. So one does not need to wait until the next lifetime to see the results of karma. Makes more sense than believing what cannot be proven. We can start with what we know and perhaps meditation can help us realize what we don't.
Comments
This forum gets OP's on this topic every few months, when newbies join. The spirit on the forum has always been flexible and welcoming toward those who don't accept rebirth, no matter the opinion of a few individual members who disagree. It's in keeping with the Buddha's teachings to test the teachings, so it's ok to reject rebirth until experience or meditation or some other eventuality might motivate someone to change their position.
However, again I state that there are respected Dharma leaders who maintain an agnostic attitude toward rebirth, and like it or not, they're part of the Dharma community, they're here to stay. Funny how some people say there's no dogma in Buddhism, and yet people who don't accept rebirth right off the bat are made to feel unwelcome.
Those who would reject a new member for not believing in rebirth can discuss it with Brian or Lincoln. This forum was created for newbies (see Brian's statement in the "NewBuddhist" category), so as long as they're here in the spirit of respectful engagement and genuine inquiry, they're welcome, and they're NewBuddhists. Capiche?
Kalama Sutta was addressed to a group of unbelievers and it is not always that Buddha talks 'both ways'. In fact I think that was the only case.
@Dakini its about making sure people aren't coming in already predisposed to rejecting something that is basically the reason for Buddha seeking Liberation, Wrong views are not fine they are damaging to Dharma practice if people come in with an open mind they will discover that Rebirth also has resembling mind states as well. Buddhism being a religion of the mind you eventually discover that this human life is simply an appearance to mind as well, if you have trouble accepting Buddha's teachings you put them on the self and make an effort to understand them however out of hand rejecting them as some do will result in little to no results from their practice.
Second, even if someone rejects rebirth, what gives someone the right to say they are not Buddhist? As I explained before the term "Buddhist" doesn't say a lot anyway. If it says anything, it is someone who on the path. And for being on the path it doesn't matter what points of view you start out with about life after death. A big part of our suffering can be seen and dealt with right here in this life.
I think everybody who benefits from the Buddha's teaching is of course welcome on this board and also welcome to call themselves a Buddhist, if they want to. Also, as Thich Nhat Hahn wisely said: "In Buddhism, all views are wrong views." Think about that one.
With metta,
Sabre
he's just wondering what would be his position of he can't bring himself to a point where he believes it.
And in Buddhism- he's not alone.
But I do think it is essential to be honest with ourselves. We should really figure out what it is we believe in our hearts. We shouldn’t be afraid of facing our doubts, nor of expressing them.
Practice is not about keeping things polite or about avoiding (inner or outer) confrontations.
So if someone tells us he doesn’t believe in rebirth that’s a good thing.
Honest doubts are better than fake convictions.
I think there may be a challenge in introducing this to Western practioners.
AFAIK, the dalai lama even encourages people to stick to their own religion while they research Buddhist teaching. I find that very refreshing.
Those who expect full acceptance from the start need to understand that you *cannot make* someone believe -- it's a process, obviously.
For all the supposed tolerance in Buddhism, the number of traditionalists and dogmatic thinkers is astounding, from what I can tell, and sadly, he attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong" seems to be as common as in other belief systems.
All I can say is the farther along the path the less important that the belief in literal Rebirth is to me.
Beliefs are based on past conditioning and future projections. To live in harmony with the present moment requires acceptance and detachment. It does not require beliefs.
The present has no past to project as a future, so there is no expectation. Whatever appears is always new, surprising, obvious, and exactly what is needed. Inter-dependently originated, without dualistic separation. This is the reality of what is. Beliefs just detract from what reality is. Without projecting a future, what happens to attachment?
There is wisdom in not needing to know and not having to project. In other words beliefs are optional.
Best Wishes
I'd like to think that rebirth is a very advanced thing to understand and it is unnecessary to understand it for a buddhist to lead a good and happy life. So I think it's ok that you don't believe. There are plenty of other Buddhist teachings that can be easily tested and will be very beneficial for you.
its weird now im 26 and I cant drink alcohol (im allergic to it)
hope this helps.
now i am not asserting my explanation is the only explanation but i am refuting, without any doubt, your claim about what the quote "obviously" talks about :rolleyes:
the reality of karmic result in your sutta quote is always true. but when & where it happens is your personal interpretation of words ['body' and 'death'] that can have two meanings
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/14880/are-nihilism-the-sphere-of-nothingness-different-or-the-same#Item_24
please note the words 'para loka' means 'other worlds' rather than 'next world'. that said, although MN 60 includes the stock phrase, MN 60 only makes claims to the actuality of 'other worlds' (hell, heaven, hungry ghost, animal, etc), karma and causality
all the best
This interpretation of dependent origination isn't consistent with the way the nidanas are actually described in the suttas. See MN9 and SN12.2 for example.
Karma is just causation... The way things go. If I step into a busy street and get hit by a car, it isn't my karma from a past life catching up with me, it's my karma from not being mindful right now.
From my view, even if the certain individuals do not reincarnate, since there is no true seperation we would all kind of be reincarnations of the entire universe.
This isn't something I got from the Dharma, it is just something I've thought about... It may even mix Hinduism in there, kinda, sorta... However, if I had to dictate the way of reincarnation, I would have the whole split into all aspects and then have each of those aspects reincarnate until all aspects become awakened to our true nature through different "lifetimes".
Ok, now I'm just killing time before I have to go. I'm actually kind of excited to be here.
Thanks guys.
There are many similar descriptions of how karma works in the suttas.
Here is one from the Samannaphala Sutta:
Recollection of Past Lives
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance......Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.'
Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. "
But not believing is an inability to belief anything, simply because one does not have the right evidence or faith for it. But it doesn't reject something as being impossible, nor is it based on that.
Huge difference.
Or in the sentence: "I do not belief superman can fly.", is obviously not the same as "I reject superman can fly". The second doesn't leave any room for doubt while the first does.
So there is a continuum: disbelief.....agnostic/don't know.......belief
An agnostic is open to possible existence.
I don't believe in ghosts because I have insufficient evidence they exist. But I am open-minded about it. I can be convinced.
Same with aliens.
I personally believe in God, but have no concrete evidence of that.
So now that you are changing your POV to saying there is a continuum...well, that's different than equating disbelief and rejecting, and closer to reality.
I suspect this distinction often gets lost in debates about rebirth.
I have my own ideas about reincarnation and they don't conform exactly with any doctrine except my own if I were to bother having any faith in them.
This is why I will always be non-sectarian.
I don't think having faith in reincarnation is the same as having faith in the Dharma because to have faith in the Dharma means it makes sense and we can see it working so we trust it.
In my honest opinion, Buddha didn't want us to take his word on faith, he wanted us to have faith that we would understand the truth within us that he could only point to.