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
Is Reincarnation a necessary belief to be Buddhist? I personally have no belief in it at all, does this mean I would belong to a particular school of Buddhism (e.g. Theravada), is it something I can just brush off and ignore? What are your thoughts?
0
Comments
Nope. In fact only Tibetan Buddhism really emphasizes "reincarnation", other forms talk about "rebirth" and everyone has their views on it. We all eventually come to our own understanding conceptually, and perhaps a different experiential understanding. Some don't believe in either except metaphorically, or not at all. That doesn't change the Buddhist practice... beliefs aren't something you choose, they choose you.
The real method of Buddhism is investigation, for which you don't need beliefs only the confidence to follow the Path. It's good to try and understand what they mean by either reincarnation or rebirth, but don't get down on yourself if you don't believe it. More important is to understand "karma", or cause and effect and how it can either keep us bound in suffering or set us free.
We should have a special topic about this that's always visible
My answer always is: No, you don't have to belief in rebirth/reincarnation to consider yourself a Buddhist. If you practice like there would be rebirth, you are always safe, nomatter what will happen after death.
However, to just ignore it, would be another extreme, because it's a part of the teachings. Of course, you can argue how important this part is. For some people it's very important, for others not important at all. And a lot are somewhere in between these views, not taking a stance. Some don't see the use of Buddhism without rebirth, some say it's added later and was not originally taught.
But whatever it is, it's in the teachings now, so it's not dismissable in total. So perhaps investigate the idea a bit (and how it fits in with the rest) so you can draw your own conclusions. If you can't agree with it, that's totally fine. Buddhism isn't a religion that forces ideas onto you; it's your own investigation. It may take years until you take a stance on this issue, or maybe it'll never happen. But that's all fine. You see, this particilar view doesn't define someone as being Buddhist or not. In fact, there is nothing really that defines a Buddhist.
With kindness,
Sabre
Whether rebirth is literal or not, realizing Nirvana is peace in this life.
If it stops rebirths... that's final peace. If there's no rebirth... that's still final peace.
And so we come back to "in this life", which is where we experience suffering.
That's what we practice for, to end the suffering we're experiencing now.
If we weren't suffering now, we wouldn't practice!
We also practice to alleviate the sufferings of others, now and in the future.
We were born into the world of our ancestors, and those who come after us will inherit the world from us. Is it not important to find and create peace, whether it's for us "personally" or it's for "us" selflessly? There's always a good reason if you're looking and empathizing. The present conditions propagate into the future, and so finding and creating peace will be beneficial regardless of how we view reincarnation/rebirth.
The most confusing part about explanations of Nirvana comes from trying to do so while still treasuring the concept of "self". (You).
"I am not interested in whether or not one is reborn. I find the whole issue irrelevant, an unnecessary distraction from what is central to the Dhamma: how to live a good life here and now. If there is rebirth and a law of karma, then this would surely be the best way to prepare for a future life. But if there is not, then one has lived optimally here and now. Moreover, this very point is explicitly made by the Buddha himself in the Kalama Sutta."
More info:
http://www.tricycle.com/p/1952
http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/rebirth-a-case-for-buddhist-agnosticism
I think we can get what Nirvana "is" mixed up with "emptiness". Nirvana is the direct realization of emptiness and the resultant cessation of suffering. It's not something supernatural or other-worldly, it's just this. Emptiness is already the way things are, with Samsara being suffering and Nirvana being non-suffering or the cessation of suffering.
Until we achieve nirvana we shall experience many more rebirths. In this regard, death is not the final answer whereas it is for materialists like Ajita Kesakambali, a contemporary of the Buddha. Modern Buddhists can argue that rebirth is irrelevant. To the contrary it is relevant. It may take many rebirths to attain nirvana.
Rebirth is just a continuation of suffering. Suffering now, suffering later.
Literally or metaphorically, it's not that there's rebirth that's the problem...
it's rebirth of suffering that's the problem.
Kindness!
Sabre
Not even the Buddha could say what nirvana "is" as a first person experience except to describe it by poetic epithets such as 'the island', 'the transcendental', 'liberation', etc.
I have made a good point that can't be so easily set aside. Western Buddhists who assume that rebirth is unnecessary have, unwittingly, turned death into nirvana since nirvana cannot be attained in one life (it took Gautama many lives). As I have pointed out before, such a position is materialism.
I'm not asking what the experience of Nirvana is like, but what you think Nirvana means.
Why do we even practice? To become something or to go somewhere? To attain?
And your other point doesn't apply to anything I was arguing. I think you misread my intention for that one post, which was to show how Nirvana is still desirable whether or not one believes in literal rebirth. I'm not arguing against rebirth whatsoever... only against whether you need to believe in it or not, and the simple fact is that you don't. You just need to understand Nirvana as the cessation of suffering, and know how to practice toward that cessation.
If rebirth is literally true in any sense, it doesn't matter if you "believe" in it, because that'd mean you're still X number of lives old and this might be the life the conditions are right for awakening. There's simply no argument that you must believe in rebirth to become enlightened. Besides, you don't choose your beliefs, they are also conditioned and will only likely change with experiential knowledge to the contrary of your current view. Some people simply can't believe in the same way others can, or perhaps not at all. Any system that says you must believe is already a failed system on that account (luckily Buddhism does not say you must have particular beliefs to practice, and the Buddha was quite clear on that).
Buddhism is absolutely not about believing, but about seeing.
I think you've mistaken my intention this entire time.
That's one of the things that makes me so certain that Buddhism is right for me. You needn't pray to a God in the hope you'll get a place in heaven, or dote on him in fear that he may punish you.
You work towards bettering your mind, yourself and the world around you, and actually take direct affects on what is really happening in the world and in yourself. I'm also extremely happy I found this site, because it was niggling away at my head that I had questions with no-one to answer them
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose (kimatthiya = what is the purport) of liberation (vimutti)? Radha, liberation surely is the meaning of Nibbana (vimutti kho, Radha, nibbânatthâ)" (S.iii.189).
And
"Nirvana is the pure Dharmakaya of the Tathagata" (Maharatnakuta Sutra).
I would point out to you and others that nirvana is not just the absence of something. If a person were to say it is just the absence of suffering why then does the canon also say it is the highest sukha (nibbânam pramam sukham)?
From the correct standpoint, when one attains nirvana, yes, it is absent of suffering and the three poisions, but it is also undying and sukha. In other words, it is positive.
My we all attain nirvana in the very self (paccattamyeva).
When it says the highest happiness, that doesn't literally mean you're blissed out like nothing you've experienced in life or anything like that. The basis of the enlightened mind is said to be the fourth jhana, where even bliss has dropped away.
People have trouble understanding that happiness is just a subtle form of suffering, and so it's very difficult to understand what's beyond both happiness and suffering. People do desire happiness though, it's all they want, and Nirvana is greater than any temporary happiness that they'd experience... it's difficult to convey Nirvana to people who don't understand Dukkha (and Samsara) fully.
Nirvana doesn't mean a permanent state of experienced bliss; it's not Heaven.
Whether or not he holds right or wrong views is up to the individual to decide.
I could just as easily say, "Caznamyaw holds wrong views and is not an authority on Buddhism."
May I suggest that when you make statements about another Buddhist not being an authority or holding wrong views that you add a phrase such as "In my view...". For example, in my view it is not wise to pass definitive judgment on whether another person has right or wrong views, when one's own views may be subject to same judgment.
"This world is blinded, few only can see here.
Like birds escaped from the nets few go to heaven (saggo).”
Saggo (Skt. svarga) is generally defined as heaven or paradise. In the commentary (atthakatha) to this verse it essentially says only a few reach nibbana. They rest are trapped in the net of Mara the Evil One.
Heavens and hells are realms of rebirth.
When there's no further rebirth, what is there?
That you say Nirvana is a permanent state of experienced bliss (exactly that), you've now finally displayed your understanding of Nirvana. I disagree with it, but this is where we need to be to communicate properly.
Remember how even the Buddha would not go into too much metaphysical debate at times. (this is also a reminder for myself)
Just for consideration.
Maybe I'll open a thread later on the nature of nirvana. Have been thinking about that anyway.
"Here at the Bodhi tree I won preeminence after seven days, woke up to enlightenment, and reached the end of the jungle and wilderness of birth, old-age and death. Here I have broken the Demon [Mara] who was my unskilled states of mind. Here I have broken the Demon who was my limited personality. Here I have broken the Demon who is the spirit of malevolence. Here, it is done, at the foot of the Bodhi tree" (Mahavastu).
Incidentally, the Buddha's devoted disciple Moggallâna admits that in a past life he was Mara. Eventually, he was reborn as one of the Buddha's most trusted disciples.
@Songhill, I hope you figure it out.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/15952/nature-of-nirvana
Actually even rebirth is different between Buddhist branches in some ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation
There is no word corresponding exactly to the English terms "rebirth", "metempsychosis", "transmigration" or "reincarnation" in the traditional languages of Pāli and Sanskrit. The entire universal process that gives rise to the cycle of death and rebirth, governed by karma, is referred to as Samsara while the state one is born into, the individual process of being born or coming into the world in any way, is referred to simply as "birth" (jāti).
That's the basis of my statement; semantically and historically, there is no difference in the terms "rebirth" and "reincarnation".
The "difference" arises from the anatman/atman distinction. Or, as Wikipedia says:
The Buddhist concept of reincarnation differs from others in that there is no eternal "soul", "spirit' or self" but only a "stream of consciousness" that links life with life. The actual process of change from one life to the next is called punarbhava (Sanskrit) or punabbhava (Pāli), literally "becoming again", or more briefly bhava, "becoming", and some English-speaking Buddhists prefer the term "rebirth" or "re-becoming" to render this term as they take "reincarnation" to imply a fixed entity that is reborn.
So there you go. I think rebirth/reincarnation are the same thing, in the same way that "tea" and "dinner" are the same thing (the main evening meal) - even though the nature of that meal varies widely (your point, as I understand it).
Namaste
More of the problem seems to be "how" rebirth is viewed.
Consciousness is reborn, yes, but it's not what we are. Consciousness is not-self the same as the other aggregates. When there is cause for the rebirth of consciousness, it is reborn. When there is not cause, it is not reborn. When it is reborn... there is past karma associated with it. There is a causal link between lives; there's no blank slate for any of us.
It's very difficult to understand the implications of rebirth when we're still mired in self/other duality and separation. So it's understandable that it's confusing and people still fall into eternalism or nihilism because the reality is so hard to grasp.
That's about as concise as I can get on the subject.
I think it's just unfamiliarity with the concept of rebirth in the West that makes it take a while to sink in. People here seem predisposed to either believe in some kind of (permanent) afterlife or not. There's a dividing line between believers and non-believers in America that creates a lot of contention, since the majority of Americans are of Christian religions. Atheism in America has been a tough sell, and those who are atheist hold as tightly to that as those who are believers. Agnosticism or "don't know" and open-mindedness are a bit more rare.
Rebirth is foreign among these, so it doesn't fit into the expectations of many Americans as an answer to life and death. First they have to discount the idea of a soul/heaven, and also the idea of annihilation/nihilism (which is what many atheists believe). It takes a bit of effort to go beyond traditional views!
Anyway, with practice comes a different understanding I think, so the initial understanding (whether for or against or "don't know") isn't a deficit. Believing in rebirth isn't as important as putting the Path into practice. It's the Path that causes the right conditions for awakening.