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
amandathetexan
Explorer
This might be a 'stupid' question, but how imperative is reincarnation to Buddhism?
I like Buddhism, and most of what it teaches makes sense to me. But the whole 'there is some cosmic force that weighs your karma and decides what kind of life you'll have next' seems a lot like the Christian God to me - it just isn't given a name or a form. Are there a lot of Buddhists that don't really pay much attention to the whole rebirth and karma aspect of it? It doesn't seem like there are many Christians I've met who buy everything up until the heaven/hell/God part, just to contrast.
Is it explained in any Buddhist texts how exactly karma is weighed, and 'who' decides?
I like Buddhism, and most of what it teaches makes sense to me. But the whole 'there is some cosmic force that weighs your karma and decides what kind of life you'll have next' seems a lot like the Christian God to me - it just isn't given a name or a form. Are there a lot of Buddhists that don't really pay much attention to the whole rebirth and karma aspect of it? It doesn't seem like there are many Christians I've met who buy everything up until the heaven/hell/God part, just to contrast.
Is it explained in any Buddhist texts how exactly karma is weighed, and 'who' decides?
1
Comments
"In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction. It is measured with the SI unit of newtons and represented by the symbol F. In other words, a force is that which can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or which can cause a flexible object to deform. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity.
The original form of Newton's second law states that the net force acting upon an object is equal to the rate at which its momentum changes.[1] This law is further given to mean that the acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on the object, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional the mass of the object." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
The consequence (acceleration or momentum) is equal to the action (or force) that "pushed" it.
I think it's an autonomous consequence, rather than one that is weighed by anything else. Of course, in reality it might be nothing like that
Being a beginner is not easy. I am guessing that there is a lot that you don't know or understand about Buddhism. On that note, it pays to be open-minded and safeguard the notions of karma and rebirth as the Buddha taught them.
Another point, reincarnation/rebirth have nothing to do with a god. Key to understanding karma and rebirth is consciousness which Western science knows nothing about since it only relies on third-person data. Here are some words by the Buddha that may help.
"[W]hen the life of a sentient being comes to an end, his body, consciousness, sense-organs, and sense -objects will all disperse because the power of karma is exhausted. The consciousness will then become the only reliance [of the ethereal mind-body complex] and will contact various objects, make up [all sorts] of notions about them, and be reincarnated, together with the good and evil karmas, to undergo other karmic results" (Maharatnakuta Sutra).
However, if you are not this body, this mind, etc, then karma isn't acting on "You", its just doing its thing: just like the clouds dropping rain. When it rains, you don't think there is somebody making it rain on you ( taking it personally). When karma (actions) happen, it is to be understood impersonally.
@RebeccaS I think that looking at it from that perspective does help
I guess my problem comes with the 'who,' but I didn't write it well initially. In science, forces and motion are easily measurable. There's a formula, and it works. The 'who' isn't necessarily a who (in this case physics would be the 'who'), so I guess 'what' might be better. There isn't anyone actually approving the vectors and declaring "Yes, this item will move 2 meters!" but rather laws of physics determine whether or not it will. Positive and negative karma aren't exactly black and white, and even if it were, you could say that doing X brings good karma, but how much good karma, etc.
In everyday life, I understand how it generally works, but when it's brought over to the rebirth side of things, I don't get how that carries over. If I'm not being mindful and don't live deliberately and in the moment, I'll end up suffering the consequences of that. The difference, at least for my understanding, is that I can see the lines. If I don't do my homework, I see the line that connects that to my not understanding a topic or not getting a good grade. If I don't eat well, my body has no other choice than to adapt to whatever diet I'm feeding it and will be unhealthy.
In my philosophy class, the professor was kind of picking at Buddhism that it's crazy to think your next life is determined on your behavior, that morals in this life are weighed by some cosmic force and affect the next, but that it can be likened to most major religions (ie a god decides, you are placed into heaven or hell, etc).
I buy into the Buddhist lifestyle even without feeling the need to believe concretely that rebirth based on karma happens, but is this uncommon?
One argument was made that Buddha encouraged people not to believe what he told them unless they could experience it for themselves, not to take his word for it. If you have not experienced reincarnation then how can u know of and believe in its existence.
The ideas of karma reach beyond this lifetime but I don't think it is fundamental to believe or not believe in anything with Buddhism, just to be open minded and follow the precepts.
Just a few thoughts on the issue. Obviously my little brain can't understand all the possible inputs and outputs of the universe.
As for the rest, kamma is best understood as a causal process whereby immaterial causes (skillful ad unskillful intentions) produce effects, where actions condition potential experiences (predominately in the form of pleasant, painful, both pleasant and painful, or neutral feelings). The basic premise is that there's a cause and effect relationship between our actions and how they're experienced. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "It's simply the fact of action—you do something unskillful, it's going to come back in an unpleasant way." In the same way, if you do something skillful, it's going to come back and be experienced in a pleasant way."
And whether or not one takes the teachings on rebirth literally, and regardless of what science has to say about the matter of the possibility of life after death, I think that Buddhism can still be a beneficial path because its morality and methodology of practice are independent of these things. At its core, Buddhism is a contemplative practice; and Buddhist meditation practices have benefits that even secular neuroscientists can appreciate.
(Also, you can fins more of my thoughts about kamma and rebirth here and here, if you're interested.)
To be honest with you, I am not sure how people can be any other way? That is not meant as a criticism as I respect everyone has a right to believe what they like. Perhaps they have experienced things I am yet to?
The priest smiled and said softly,
'let me show you the path beyond coming and going'.
The man sighed again, as his body relaxed for the last time.
I see the idea of rebirth more as a continuing series of changes that occur in a single "lifetime" and the different realms (such as that of the hungry ghost) are part of the human experience.
When I first met my wife of twenty years (so far) we discussed reincarnation and she said she thought that we keep coming back until we get it right. I think she might have something there but the mechanics of it are beyond any scope of my understanding.
And philosophy teachers do that because it's their job to teach critical thinking...to make you uncomfortable enough to examine your own beliefs. Sometimes it's frustrating and even scary, but it's a good experience to have. I disliked my Philosophy of Ethics class the most of everything I ever took but I learned alot about examining myself and my life because of the level of discomfort directed at all the things I thought I knew. I was however mad that I thought I wrote a decent paper arguing that neither good or evil exists, and I got a D on it, lol.
Thanks for that - poor choice of words on my part - I should have used "details."
The Buddha said of some questions 'I answer not in this way'. Some questions are answered only by practicing the dhamma.
p.s. your choice of words was fine, your post was just unlucky enough to be used to illustrate a point
(which belongs to Mara the Evil One).Through self knowledge (atmajñâna) we know that consciousness transmigrates. At our death, consciousness will leave the body to take birth again, with its accumulated karmas, resonating with another type of being (sattva). It could be a deva, human, animal, etc.
The fact that we have been born once already erases the absolute certainity we will not be reborn after we die.
accordance with my intentions
(Karma) but I am lost at how any
Buddhist can believe in reincarnation
when the Buddha saw this as superfluous and called on his followers to ignore magical thinking and pay no attention to metaphysics
I do find it interesting that some Buddhists don't accept this possibility of rebirth throughout success lifetimes because this seems to go against the doctrine of dependent origination, and severely limits the possibility of the enlightenment for all sentient beings particularly those that are currently in less fortunate or conducive states of being.
Skepticism would be understandable at first, but I would think that through investigation of the teachings and inference one would eventually come to acceptance. I remember watching a program about the Dalai Lama where his encounter with Carl Sagan was mentioned. It was told that Carl Sagan asked the Dalai Lama if we could prove reincarnation wasn't true what would you do, and he flat out said we would stop believing it. Then he asked him in return how you would go about disproving it and Carl Sagan was silent.
From the point of view we experience, the burden of proof is upon whoever asserts that there is an absence of experience, simply because this is just an idea.
Sadly, as the Dalai Lama observed, there really is no form of proof possible. That's why it's a philosophical or religious issue, not a scientific one.
Presently, there is no way to overcome the divide between first-person introspection and third-person perception. Neuroscience certainly hasn't been able do it. It has reached an impasse which the philosopher Colin McGinn calls "cognitive closure." In other words, neuroscience lacks the necessary ability to overcome the divide. This suggests that man has not sufficiently evolved to a state of being whereby the divide is overcome. We are still more in the cave drawing on walls, than out of the cave.
For those who strongly maintain that third-person perception is the only kind of valid knowledge, we would have to shut down our universities, close the mathematics department and even shut down physics since it rests on metaphysical thought-things like force, resistance, mass, velocity, etc. which make up the artificial scaffolding that Big Science places over the world like longitudinal and latitudinal lines on a globe.
There is no need to take a position of belief or disbelief on this, and I would advise keeping an open mind.
There is a Mahayana Sutra, The Sutra of Cause and Effect, where the specific workings of karma are explained, but I don't consider it authoritative e.g. http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=374
p.s. there actually is one sutta I recall where the Buddha predicts the results of action, but I wouldn't necessarily read his words literally, and personally I consider them to be skillful means.
'1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living in the Koliyan country: there is a town of the Koliyans called Haliddavasana.
2. Then Punna, a son of the Koliyans and an ox-duty ascetic, and also Seniya a naked dog duty ascetic, went to the Blessed One, and Punna the ox duty ascetic paid homage to the Blessed One and sat down at one side, while Seniya the naked dog-duty ascetic exchanged greetings with the Blessed One, and when the courteous and amiable talk was finished, he too sat down at one side curled up like a dog. When Punna the ox-duty ascetic sat down, he asked the Blessed One: "Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What will be his future course?"[1]
"Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that."
A second time... A third time Punna the ox-duty ascetic asked the Blessed One: "Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What will be his future course?"
"Well, Punna, since I certainly cannot persuade you when I say 'Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that,' I shall therefore answer you.
3. "Here, Punna, someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him to hell."'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo.html
@Jeffrey, I can buy that, except that's not what people say over and over and over and over again.
Personally, the problem I have with karma is the not basic concept of cause and effect -- that makes sense. What bothers me about it is how many interpretations of karma there are. For example, many people here say that karma is actually what happens within your own mind when you do something "wrong". So how that ends up in rebirth in another realm...well that makes no sense at all.
I tend to think of Karma as being a combination of these two ideas. Every action has consequences that can be far reaching and the consequences eventually find their way back to where the action originated. This may take a short time or a very long time.
It's not only bad things either; it's a salmon's karma to return to it's birthplace.
Karmic actions whether positive, neutral, or negative leave imprints on our consciousness that ripens when the appropriate conditions are met. The consciousness we are speaking of is not the gross consciousness that we attribute to our normal natural understanding, but very subtle that all beings posses.
Basically our actions go through several stages from the initial thought, volition or intent to commit, committing the act, and then its completion. Each stage can add more weight or impact to the action in a number of ways. For instance, if one creates a negative action and goes through the entire stages and has strong satisfaction at the completing stage then the strength would be more significant than say if the same act was committed with remorse.
Repeated actions have a tendency to become habit so in that sense we have a propensity to act in a certain way when the appropriate conditions are met. For example, when a motorist cuts me off I might have a tendency to be become angry and then flip them off. However, it does not dictate the way one acts. We still have a fair amount of liberty which can be enhanced through practice. A monk once told me in broken English. Change your karma, maybe change your feelings.
Karma does not just relate to the individual. Societies and realms also share a similar karma. Most of you have probably heard of the term Buddha realms.
It is the very subtle consciousness that continues from life to life. When the karma that propels the existence of a being is exhausted at death the consciousness is separated from the body. The memories and attachments to the proceeding life eventually fade and the mind enters a state of unconsciousness if you will, and then in becoming takes rebirth in a realm of similar karmic relationship where on the individual level the strong karmic tendencies are predominant.
http://diydharma.org/rebirth-and-kamma-part-1-2-venerable-bhikkhu-bodhi