Rebirth Vs. Reincarnation.

white_wolf

I've heard it said that Buddhism doesn't actually teach reincarnation, which is a Hindu teaching, but rather rebirth. I'm wondering, what is the difference between the two? It doesn't make sense to me, it seems like different words for the same thing.

federica

Reincarnation in buddhism is a specifically Tibetan Buddhist concept.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a reincarnation of the XIII Dalai Lama.
But they are not carbon copies. All hoi poloi remaining are reborn.

PrairieGhost

Reincarnation:

a fish leaps into a different stream

Rebirth

the stream bends, is renamed, but continues flowing


Or

Empty space is neither moving nor still, existent or non-existent, mortal or eternal, and neither are we, though we are not like empty space.

federica

Reincarnation is like growing an apple tree from the cutting of a previous apple tree; Rebirth is like growing an apple tree from a seed.

Another way to think about the difference is that reincarnation would be like the string in a necklace holding the individual beads of each life together. The Buddhist concept of re-birth would be more like a stack of blocks, each new block depends upon the last one for its support but they aren't tied together.

The above are quotations from other members, but I can't for the life of me remember who, where or when.... I just jotted them down because they made sense to me.

Apologies to the original authors for not making note.....

white_wolf

Thanks a lot that really helps. So, only Tibetan Buddhists believe reincarnation, the rest hold the view of rebirth? I'm just wondering because I practice at a Tibetan Center, because it's the only one near me, but I don't agree with all of their teachings.

Sabre

Reincarnation is usually used to refer a soul migrating from life to life. Rebirth is a similar process without a soul, just like a river is not always made of the same water. This is what the teachings on no-self refer to.

But the difference is not so big and I don't know if this wordplay already existed in the time of the Buddha.

federica

the word 'Reincarnation' literally means 'made flesh again' which would strictly apply to the phenomenon, for example, of Christ rising from the dead, as a recognisable and immediate personification of himself directly before his death.

'Reincarnation' even as used in Tibetan Buddhist terms is a little misleading, because as I understand it, the dying Realised Lama is able to leave definitive clues as to where his 'replacement' can be found.
This 'replacement' is a child, normally no older than 2 years (any more than that, and it seems the 'imprint' of the previous Lama weakens and eventually may be lost altogether if the child is not located quickly enough).
This child is referred to as a tulku and needs educating, bringing up and teaching the ways of his deceased predecessor. but the child has their own kamma, characteristics, temperament and idiosyncrasies....
The child is tested as to their authenticity in a number of ways, including being presented with various artefacts, relics and belongings used by the previous incarnation, mixed with other similar yet meaningless objects, and observing whether the child focuses on those specific items amongst the others....
However, he is not considered a fully-fledged reincarnation until he is 'enthroned' or ordained as a Lama.....at a much later date.

ozen

I've heard it said that Buddhism doesn't actually teach reincarnation, which is a Hindu teaching, but rather rebirth. I'm wondering, what is the difference between the two? It doesn't make sense to me, it seems like different words for the same thing.

The only difference is that Hindu believes there's a self and Buddhism don't, so Hindu believe that a self is reborn and the Buddhism believes that a 'not-self' something or other is reborn.

driedleaf

Rebirth does not necessarily have to involve physical birth. Reincarnation would require a physical entity.

similar discussion here

person

The reincarnation of a high lama in Tibetan Buddhism is thought to happen in the same way as any one else's rebirth, the only difference is that the lama can control his rebirth and leave clues as to where in order to guide others to the new life.

Talisman

The Buddha doesn't actually ever use the term rebirth. He describes Birth dependent upon Becoming. Rebirth is term a lot of people use nowadays to try and explain what happens after death. IMO, people need to stop thinking about what happens after death, because death is already happening. There is no "after death", just a constant state of death. Things are constantly falling apart. Everything, everywhere, is falling apart and dying RIGHT NOW. This decay and death is suffering. It has a cause. It has a cessation. There is a path to bring about its end.

hermitwin

Buddha talked about his previous lives.
Do you think he was referring to rebirth or reincarnation?

I've heard it said that Buddhism doesn't actually teach reincarnation, which is a Hindu teaching, but rather rebirth. I'm wondering, what is the difference between the two? It doesn't make sense to me, it seems like different words for the same thing.

DairyLama

The Buddha doesn't actually ever use the term rebirth. He describes Birth dependent upon Becoming.

Yes, individual births arise as a result of the process of becoming in the 3 realms.

Dakini

The only difference is that Hindu believes there's a self and Buddhism don't, so Hindu believe that a self is reborn and the Buddhism believes that a 'not-self' something or other is reborn.

In Buddhism it's the "citta" or "alaya vijnana" or "seed consciousness" or "very subtle mind" that's reborn. Or...transmigrates. Though no one uses that word, that's what the process describes. Semantics are crucial, use the wrong word and suddenly you've sparked huge controversy that can go on for pages and pages on a forum.

person

The only difference is that Hindu believes there's a self and Buddhism don't, so Hindu believe that a self is reborn and the Buddhism believes that a 'not-self' something or other is reborn.

In Buddhism it's the "citta" or "alaya vijnana" or "seed consciousness" or "very subtle mind" that's reborn. Or...transmigrates. Though no one uses that word, that's what the process describes. Semantics are crucial, use the wrong word and suddenly you've sparked huge controversy that can go on for pages and pages on a forum.

Because they aren't just different words with the same meaning. The concepts behind them are different. Its not the word that is important its what it points to. I don't have a strong enough understanding to coherently differentiate them, but people who do understand don't feel that the debate is semantic.

ozen

The only difference is that Hindu believes there's a self and Buddhism don't, so Hindu believe that a self is reborn and the Buddhism believes that a 'not-self' something or other is reborn.

In Buddhism it's the "citta" or "alaya vijnana" or "seed consciousness" or "very subtle mind" that's reborn. Or...transmigrates. Though no one uses that word, that's what the process describes. Semantics are crucial, use the wrong word and suddenly you've sparked huge controversy that can go on for pages and pages on a forum.

Because they aren't just different words with the same meaning. The concepts behind them are different. Its not the word that is important its what it points to. I don't have a strong enough understanding to coherently differentiate them, but people who do understand don't feel that the debate is semantic.

I don't mind pointing out the obvious but if you don't have "a strong enough understanding" how could you possibly know if the issue is not merely semantics?

David

To me the difference is very little. Like the difference between a bodhisattva and an Arahant.

We are unique aspects of the same thing and so to me, ultimately, we are all each other.

I feel reincarnated and reborn with every new life.

David

To me the difference is very little. Like the difference between a bodhisattva and an Arahant.

We are unique aspects of the same thing and so to me, ultimately, we are all each other.

I feel reincarnated and reborn with every new life.

zenff

In another sense we were never born at all.

http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/bankei_zen_master.html
“Bankei Yōtaku, also known as Kokushi (1622-93), was an acclaimed Japanese Zen master of the Rinzai tradition (tracing back to the great 9th century Chinese Ch’an master Linji), and abbot of the Myōshinji, Nyōhoji, Kōrinji, and Ryōmonji monasteries in Japan. Bankei is renowned for the emphasis in his talks on the “Unborn” (Fu-shō) Buddha-mind or Buddha-nature, the birthless, deathless, timeless, spaceless, boundless Awareness-Isness-Aliveness, Our Real Identity.”

“During this near-death period Bankei attained initial enlightenment or kenshō. He later described the epiphany: “I felt a strange sensation in my throat. I spat against a wall. A mass of black phlegm large as a soapberry rolled down the side...Suddenly, just at that moment...I realized what it was that had escaped me until now: All things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn [the Eternal, Absolute, Open, Infinite Awareness].”[3] “It struck me like a thunderbolt that I had never been born, and that my birthlessness could settle any and every matter.”[4]”

person

I don't mind pointing out the obvious but if you don't have "a strong enough understanding" how could you possibly know if the issue is not merely semantics?

Because the people who do have a strong enough understanding tell me they are different and I believe them. I have a small enough understanding to say that the words are describing different things, what I meant was I don't know enough to actually have personal conviction or explain it to anyone else. They are very subtle and complicated philosophical points.

Dakini

Because they aren't just different words with the same meaning. The concepts behind them are different. Its not the word that is important its what it points to. I don't have a strong enough understanding to coherently differentiate them, but people who do understand don't feel that the debate is semantic.

I understand what you're saying, but what my point is that I disagree that they're different. Well, maybe there's some difference between "soul" and "subtle consciousness", but I think as in Hinduism, transmigration happens. We may as well call a spade a spade. I realize this may be some sort of heresy, but I've read all the arguments and studied the question and well, to make a long story short and hopefully avoid a fight, that's just the way I see it.

I know rebirth is supposed to be different from reincarnation, but if the seed consciousness (citta, or whatever you want to call it) is reborn in another body, that's transmigration. We can quibble about what it is that's transmigrating, from a Hindu perspective vs. a Buddhist perspective, but transmigration it is, if a new body is imbued with the consciousness, or karmic seeds, from a deceased body. Clearly something is transmigrating. "migrate" -to move. "trans" - across, from one thing or place to another. Pretty well describes the process, doesn't it?

The interesting thing is that the Tibetans use all the same language as the other traditions (which are supposed to refute that it's the same person being reborn, meaning the same personality), and yet rebirth in the Tibetan tradition is believed to be the rebirth of the same person, the same personality. It's even said sometimes that the personality traits of the previous lama can be recognized in the younger incarnation, it's sometimes said that they have past life recall or that they remember their dharma lessons from the past lives, so their studies progress very quickly. That does seem to indicate the rebirth of a "soul", but they say no, it's just the very subtle mind. Well, ok, maybe it is, how would we know? We just have to go on faith or logic or our own inquiry via study and/or meditation.

:-/ meh... go figure.

zenff

And there’s this question I find intriguing (but I don’t remember anyone else getting enthusiastic about it, lol).

For a simple example:
When I get drunk, I get a headache the next morning. That’s instant karma. And I’ll think twice.
But what if I get drunk and someone else, the guy next door, gets a headache. Well, that’s bad luck for the guy next door and good for me! Cheers! (Not very Buddhist of me but follow the thought.)

So it is relevant to know (when thinking about karma-consequences) whether my actions come back to someone else (no problem) or to me (problem). And if they come back to me; what exactly is this me?
For karma to be a thing of relevance there must be a “soul”, or at least something subjective which transmigrates; a capacity to experience specific qualia; or the thing which makes my brain so different to me, compared to the brain of the guy next door.

I’m not looking for a fight either. I just find this kind of question fascinating, and not only in the context of rebirth/reincarnation.
I’m interested in what this is, in who I am. Who or what is having the headache. Who or what is the “me” in “my” consciousness? If something could transmigrate after death what exactly would that be?

federica

Answer your own question:
Let us say for example (leaving all trauma, emotion and physical pain aside for the sake of the argument) that you lose both your arms.

Does that alter who you are?
Does having 2 limbs less alter your mental condition?
No.
Your mental condition does not rely on you having two arms to proceed as your mental condition.

if you were able to remove limbs and organs at will, (under the aforementioned circumstances) it would still not alter your mental condition one jot.

so if you remove all such attachments - what is left?
All that is Mind-wrought, is left.
All you do with your Mind, is left.
What do you do with your Mind?
Everything.
So in order for you to ask what exactly transmigrates, you need first to answer - What is Mind?

zenff

@Federica

"What is the mind? It is a phenomenon that is not body, not substantial, has no form, no shape, no color, but, like a mirror, can clearly reflect objects."
Lama Zopa Rinpoche

Okay; if mind is such a phenomenon my question still stands. I’m pretty (though not absolutely) sure that the guy next door has a mind of his own and he experiences this reflection of objects like I do.
But we’re separated. Just like we’re separate chunks of meat we’re separate chunks of mind, apparently.
Does my separate chunk of mind transmigrate to another chunk of meat or does it dissolve and does a new chunk of mind connect somehow with this other chunk of meat?

To illustrate the Buddhist approach to the mind, let us compare our body and mind to a computer. In this simile, the body is the hardware and the mind is the software.
As mentioned above, the mind is defined as a non-physical phenomena which perceives, thinks, recognizes, experiences and reacts to the environment, not unlike computer software.
Although software needs to be imprinted or registered in something like the hard-drive before it can do anything, in itself, a program represents a lot of thinking by the software manufacturer. Without software (mind), the hardware (body) is just a 'dead thing'. The hardware (body) is of course important in what the computer can do; how fast it is, which programs can be run, and how the computer can interact with the world. However good the hardware is, it can ultimately only perform what the program 'knows'. The hardware can get damaged, or even 'die', and the software can be moved onto another set of hardware; not unlike rebirth!

This isn’t solving the problem either. Software reflects just one aspect of mind; it’s perceived role as actor, as the one making the decisions, as the controller. That’s a whole different subject not to get into right now. The point however is that software is a bad example for the subjective experience of mind because we all probably agree that computer software doesn’t have it. So we can obviously move software around from one computer to another. We can make copies. But it isn’t mind. It has no consciousness, no capacity to experience qualia and not this distinct “my” experience of them.

I'm still struggling here.

:scratch:

federica

Quit struggling.
Just accept there are certain matters we cannot entirely see, understand or discern.
Many opinions abound, but the proof of the pudding is in eating it.
Wait until you eat, then let us know....
Until then, read the menu or the cookbook, and enjoy the mouthwatering different ways to prepare the pie....

Jeffrey

@Dakini, seed consciousness has no contents, I think. There is no personality and no characteristics. The seeds themselves have structure and I guess personality in the sense of tendencies. But the ground they arise from is vast mind and cannot be pinned down. This is why it is said that citta, formations, leads to deliverance. The mind stops grasping to the seeds and thus the seeds are no longer problems.

person

@zenff I really like your questions and I don't have any satisfactory answers for myself either. One point I think I can make though is that in your headache analogy there is a line of thought that we are constantly changing so the you that experiences the headache isn't the same you that got drunk. I'm not sure that's a complete answer but its an angle to consider and could be applied across lives.

@Dakini I guess where I come down is that these ideas aren't just limited to intellectual arguments. I do believe that people have spent time in deep meditation and have discerned these differences directly and that its upon these testimonies that the distinction is made. So I guess there is a bit of faith involved, see this thread.

zenff

@person

“One point I think I can make though is that in your headache analogy there is a line of thought that we are constantly changing so the you that experiences the headache isn't the same you that got drunk. I'm not sure that's a complete answer but its an angle to consider and could be applied across lives.”

Thanks for your reaction.

We are constantly changing and you’re right, the one getting drunk and the one getting the headache are not identical. Or are they?

Okay, the beard grew and a couple of brain-cells died. But the “me”, or the subjective experience, is exactly the same. I know that when I get drunk, the one who will get the headache will be “me” and not the guy next door; the drunkenness and the headache will both land in the same field of subjective experience; in the same chunk of mind.

Or in other words; the fact that I get older and change doesn’t cross a certain barrier. It doesn’t change me into someone as distant as the guy next door.
Not even a total make-over with plastic surgery and psycho-therapy and all - will change my subjective experience into someone else’s.

When I die that’s a radical change. This chunk of meat will probably be cremated. And what will happen to this chunk of mind? When it dissolves; the karma consequences go to the guy next door (the poor bastard who will inherit them.)

When this personal field of subjective experience moves on to another body though, that’s reincarnation Hindu-style. And the question remains what exactly this subjective thing is.

(These are just my silly thoughts and questions; don’t let them disturb your practice)

Dakini

zenff, if you got drunk and thereby caused someone else to experience a headache, it would be "bad karma" for you. You were the cause of someone else's suffering. I supposed if you weren't aware of it, then according to the principle of intent being what generates karmic seeds, you'd be scott-free. But somehow, it still doesn't seem right.

If your friend or neighbor were to mention to you that he occasionally got headaches for no reason, and the timing happened to coincide with your partying, then you'd be aware of a cause and effect, and then you would bear some responsibility, it seems to me. Even though no evil intent was involved.

(OK, really getting into the Speculation Dept. now...)

ozen

I don't mind pointing out the obvious but if you don't have "a strong enough understanding" how could you possibly know if the issue is not merely semantics?

Because the people who do have a strong enough understanding tell me they are different and I believe them. I have a small enough understanding to say that the words are describing different things, what I meant was I don't know enough to actually have personal conviction or explain it to anyone else. They are very subtle and complicated philosophical points.

Belief is not understanding.

person

I don't mind pointing out the obvious but if you don't have "a strong enough understanding" how could you possibly know if the issue is not merely semantics?

Because the people who do have a strong enough understanding tell me they are different and I believe them. I have a small enough understanding to say that the words are describing different things, what I meant was I don't know enough to actually have personal conviction or explain it to anyone else. They are very subtle and complicated philosophical points.

Belief is not understanding.

I did also say I had a small understanding, enough to know the words are describing something different. But I guess you got me, I believe other people's testimony.

ozen

Well, what's the testimony? We'll see if it's all semantics.

Anji

Theravada and Zen do not see that an ''individual soul'' continues after death.However we are similar to others who've come before us,and others who follow also similar.The above sects fully accept that individuals have a beginning and an end.Why focus so much on the afterlife when you should be bringing oneself back to the present.Buddhism is not Hinduism or Jainism.At times I see myself like Ikkyu or Chrissie Hynnes(rock singer) or an imperfect Kwannon.I have no idolization for celebrities or the pretentious,as that is egotistical.Anyone who believes they are the individual reincarnation of someone famous,has contempt for ordinary people,and probably low self-esteem.

how

rebirth & reincarnation
The most instructive aspect of these two questions is unearthing what part of us wants to know & why? That answer puts rebirth & reincarnation, up there with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.