Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Buddhism Without Rebirth

edited September 2006 in Buddhism Today
I think I may have asked this here or somewhere else, but I will again. First off, when asked what religion I am I always say I am an Agnostic Buddhist. If they are interested, I go on to explain that I see God(s) as irrelevant and put much more trust in ethics and action rather than creeds or set-in-stone dogma. When it comes to the afterlife, I honestly am not all that interested because I see this life as being more important and much more interesting. I tend to believe nothing happens and once the mind shuts down, all counsciousness, thought processes, souls, or whatever else there may be die with it.

So my question is thus. Do you feel that a belief in a literal rebirth (karma or counscience carrying on to another entity) is necessary for practicing of Buddhism? Steve Hagen and Lama Surya Das seem to say 'no' in their books I have read. I also say no because I do not believe in a literal rebith personally.

Now I know there are many stories about past lives, future births, heavens, hells, different realms. But that is all they are; just stories. And when it really comes down to it, my belief or lack of belief in rebirth will not change the way I think or act at all.

Any thoughts?
«13

Comments

  • edited August 2006
    I can't give you word for word but I have read that as Buddhists we are to question everything including Buddhist teachings and that if we can not agree with it or are not comfortable with it then we should not follow it. We are not asked to have blind faith and believe all of the teachings. Only after we have questioned, researched and studied it should we make a decision to agree or disagree. And if you find that you do not agree, no problem..........it is perfectly ok.........

    In my opinion...........This is one of the many great things about Buddhism.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited August 2006
    KoB,

    My thoughts:

    A.) An understanding of rebirth is a part of mundane Right View, which is the support and requisite condition for the other factors of the Path (MN 117).

    B.) The Buddha never said do not follow something simply because you disagree with it, he said that a view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise. (AN 3.65).

    C.) By the Buddha's own admission, if it were not important to the understanding and cessation of suffering, he would not have taught it at all (SN 56.31).

    D.) Why follow a path whose teachings you do not believe in, or find unimportant? Outright rejection of these teachings would leave you with simple humanism—not Buddhism. However, taking these teachings as a working hypothesis instead of ignoring them altogether allows you to leave them aside for now, but still have them there for you to test in the future.

    Best wishes,

    Jason
  • pineblossompineblossom Veteran
    edited September 2006
    Do you feel that a belief in a literal rebirth (karma or counscience carrying on to another entity) is necessary for practicing of Buddhism?

    No. The alternative is the source of more skilful practice - experience. The Buddha was pretty adamant that beliving in something just becaue it has a long tradition, or that this has been practiced for generations, or because of deference to your spiritual teachers; nor should you hold to certain views just because you are comfortable with them - but after due dilgence and careful investigation such practices leads to greater love, understanding and wisdom and are benefical to yourself and other sentient beings - then it is these things that should occupy to space and time and form the criteria against which you judge your actions.
  • edited September 2006
    i don't understand the entire concept of rebirth or how it fits into buddhism.. for a religion with no gods.. and a 'religion' which in my opinion is one that only accepts logic.. i have no clue how it fits in.. Its mere speculation like all the mad christian stuff.

    baffled.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited September 2006
    Actually Celebrin, one take (namely mine) is compatible with the scientific Physics Law that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
    There is little mystery associated, nowadays, with how the Human body actually works. I think I may be right in saying that there is still room for conjecture as to why it works. What actually drives us.... what is the 'electricity/energy/force that actually compels/impels/propels us to move, speak, act and think as we do?
    At the moment of conception - when the sperm meets the egg - a biological process takes place, but this is driven, or kick-started, by the influx of energy which in its own turn is activated by the biological process...(what came first, the chicken or the egg....?)

    At this moment, too many factors to mention, or care about, happen here....the fertilised egg has inherited a portion of energy. Some from its own parents, and some from the automatic input at conception. What we inherit, we cannot change. What we are infused with, is ours to manipulate.
    This energy is all around us. We live in it, constantly. It is the great collective of all life past, ready to re-activate.

    Before you dismiss this as a load of hookum, consider that you exist in the middle of a vast amount of electrica energy already... it drives televisions, radios, mobile 'phones, computers and any electronic wireless equipment. You flick a switch, and the light goes on. But whilst the wiring in your house may conduct electricity, where it comes from is more vague...

    As for who or what is re-born, I love the analogy of the two candles:

    Light one candle.
    Now light the second one, from the first candle flame.
    Blow the first flame out.
    This second flame, now....
    Is it the same as the first, or different?

    You don't have to accept any of this. You don't have to listen, take it on board, believe or even think about it if you don't want to.

    Just leave it all aside, until maybe, some day, something 'clicks'.

    It's all choice.
  • edited September 2006
    If you would like a good expanation of the process of death and rebirth I would suggest reading the book "An Open Heart: Practicing Compassion in Everyday Life
    " by the Dali Lama. It has a very logical, easily understood and convincing expanation of this process. Only after reading this and rolling it over in my head for a few weeks was I able to understand the concept and be comfortable with it.

    In summary, it suggests that previously exisiting material provides the basis for the physical aspects of your body, but not conciousness, and that only from previously existing conciousness could conciousness emerge. Federica's analogy of the candles is a very good one from this perspective. The flame of the second candle could only come from a pre-existing source.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited September 2006
    Love the lickle bubba!!



    Sorry. Off topic. :D
  • edited September 2006
    He's something else, isn't he! My wife and I joke that he's our dearly departed dachshund reincarnated. That could be a bad thing, since I had him put to sleep when his health was too bad to care for. Maybe Gabriel will "pull the plug" on me when I re-discover diapers.

    Well... kinda on subject anyway!
  • MagwangMagwang Veteran
    edited September 2006
    KBuck wrote:

    He's something else, isn't he! ....

    Well... kinda on subject anyway!

    ::

    More than that, perhaps an answer to the question!

    :
  • edited September 2006
    True. I also have 3 older step-children, and thought that having a child of my own would feel the same way. So not true. Be it biological or metaphysical- there is no doubt that the continuation from parent to child creates a singular bond that cannot exist with anyone else. He has been a great help in dealing with the stepchildren too, after the inital shock. I try to remember that my wife feels the same way about the stepkids that I do about our son and speak and act accordingly. Looking back, if someone talked to my son like I've talked to the stepgirls, I'd be very, VERY upset.
  • MagwangMagwang Veteran
    edited September 2006
    There has been wierdness in my family over the subject of step-children also, and then along comes my adopted daughter from Korea - who is adored by everyone. Doesn't quite make sense when people say "I can't love someone as much who's not a blood relative. ".

    In Korean culture, the soul is considerd by some to be inherited from the father, so strong is the paternal family model there. Only now is South Korea starting to promote domestic adoption over international adoption.



    ...and I don't see how I could love any child (with my DNA or not) more than I love my Cecilia.

    ::
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited September 2006
    From the Kalama Sutta:
    The Four Solaces
    17. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.

    "'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

    "'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

    "'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

    "'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

    "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."

    "So it is, Blessed One. So it is, Sublime one. The disciple of the Noble Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, four solaces are found.

    "'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

    "'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

    "'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

    "'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

    "The disciple of the Noble Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found.
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html

    Also. From the preface to the Sutta:
    The Kalama Sutta, which sets forth the principles that should be followed by a seeker of truth, and which contains a standard things are judged by, belongs to a framework of the Dhamma; the four solaces taught in the sutta point out the extent to which the Buddha permits suspense of judgment in matters beyond normal cognition. The solaces show that the reason for a virtuous life does not necessarily depend on belief in rebirth or retribution, but on mental well-being acquired through the overcoming of greed, hate, and delusion.

    _/\_
    metta
  • buddhafootbuddhafoot Veteran
    edited September 2006
    Not - thank you for that bit of the Kalama.

    Mag - thank you for that wonderful picture and statements love and affection.

    Just made my morning.

    -bf
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited September 2006
    Actually not believing in rebirth means that you do believe in nihilism, that is, that you don't believe in the law of karma (cause and effect). In other words, if you don't get caught in this life, then you're home free!

    Once you understand that there is in truth no "I", no "self" that exists apart from and independent of everything else, then the whole question of death and rebirth becomes moot. You are constantly dying and being reborn from instant to instant. It is our deluded notion of a separate "self" that keeps it going. Once the delusion is seen through and you have the realization of emptiness, there is no longer any doubt.

    Palzang
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited September 2006
    That's another keeper, Palzang. I love how you express these things, I understand them much better when you explain them. Thanks so much.

    Those babies are sooooooo cuuuuuuute!!!! They're killing me!! What fortunate little beings to have you as their parents. They're very, very beautiful.

    If you ever feel like uploading a few more somewhere here, I, for one, would love it. I can never get enough of baby pictures. Never.

    Mag,
    Is Cecilia eating alphabet soup?
  • edited September 2006
    Cause and Effect guide all my actions. I can't help but accept karma. And yes I would agree I take rebirth to mean more of a moment-to-moment change in our lives. If I don't get caught in this life for things I have done wrong, I'm not home free, I'm dead. Death...The Ultimate Equalizer as far as I am concerned. Does not differentiate between rich, poor, guilty, innocent, murderers, or any others.

    Hmm...Maybe Buddhist Humanist????
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited September 2006
    No one to die, no one to be reborn. Yet consciousness - whatever that may be - goes on.

    Palzang
  • edited September 2006
    But that is just the question. How do I know for myself whether counsciousness goes on?
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited September 2006
    The way I look at it is, short of experiencing the continuum of consciousness myself, I know logically that energy can't be destroyed. Therefore consciousness can't just stop when my body dies. It changes, but it's not destroyed.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited September 2006
    KoB,

    The short answer: Meditation.

    By practicing meditation — and having a mind concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — one is able to direct their mind towards the three knowledges, namely: knowledge of the recollection of past lives, knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings, and knowledge of the ending of mental fermentations. In the Cula-hatthipadopama Sutta, for example, the knowledge of the recollection of past lives is described thus:
    "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. 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. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. (MN 27)

    Although, this is not required.

    Jason
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited September 2006
    Brigid,

    While I have made similar comparisons in the past, I have since found that it is better not to make them for various reasons. One of them being, consciousness is not like our current understanding of energy in that consciousness has its supporting condition:
    "What is the supporting condition for consciousness? 'Kamma formations' should be the reply." (SN 12.23)

    Consciousness is not an indestructible thing in and of itself. Consciousness, as with all conditioned things, is unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not-self. As such, it must follow the truth that whatever has the nature of arising, has the nature of ceasing. (SN 56.11)

    Jason
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited September 2006
    Okay. Thanks Jason. I was wondering about the dissolving of consciousness at death, too, so my previous post should just be ignored. It doesn't make sense. I'm unclear about what consciousness is and I just can't seem to wrap my head around it yet. But as you say, meditation is the path that will take me there. Thanks for guiding me out of a wrong view, Jason. Bless you.
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited September 2006
    But that is just the question. How do I know for myself whether counsciousness goes on?


    Does it continue from moment to moment? Same thing...

    Palzang
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited September 2006
    Everyone,

    To simplify things a little bit, I thought I would give a quick review of this teaching. In short, the beginning of this round of rebirth in not evident, therefore, worrying about how and when it all started is essentially a waste of time (SN 15.3). Nevertheless, there is suffering, and as long as beings continue to be reborn, they will continue to experience suffering. Beings experience suffering due to the very nature of conditional existence—i.e. its unsatisfactoriness, inconstancy, and not-selfness.

    The root cause of our suffering is ignorance, in particular, ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Suffering will continue to arise as long as there are the supporting conditions for it to arise. Once the supporting conditions cease, suffering ceases. This knowledge of whatever has the nature of arising, has the nature of ceasing is realized when one attains the first stage of Awakening (SN 56.11). Once the root of ignorance has been complete uprooted from the mind, there is no more further becoming—whether in this world or any other.

    Consciousness — the act of taking note of sense data and ideas as they occur — will also continue to arise and cease in this cyclic existence until the supporting conditions for its arising are completely cut off. Until then, it is but one link in a chain of conditionality that is essentially a self-perpetuating feedback loop called dependent arising. It is only with the remainderless fading and cessation of ignorance that this chain of causation can be broken, and subsequently, the cessation of this entire mass of stress and suffering (SN 12.2).

    Now, the question might arise, “If an arahant has achieved this state of cessation, why does he still have a mind, body, consciousness, et cetera?” The answer is that even though the arahant has uprooted ignorance, and therefore there is no more becoming, there is still the results of past kamma in previous lives that must exhaust themselves—i.e. the mind and body. Once this kamma has been exhausted, and since no new kamma is being produced, the arahant passes away never to re-appear in any of the realms of existence again (Iti 44).

    I believe that the real importance of rebirth in Buddhism is that it is warning us that suffering does not simply cease when we die if the conditions for its arising are still present. If you leave the root cause of ignorance unchecked, who knows how many more tears will be shed, in how many more lives, in how many more worlds. It is essentially a teaching that helps to arouse the urgency to practice within us because not only is this human birth rare, but so is our chance to practice (SN 56.48).

    Sincerely,

    Jason
  • edited September 2006
    I can't get my head round rebirth either - and mostly, I don't try. I liked Palzang's post yesterday (thank you, Palzang) which I thought put things very clearly. For me, it's precisely this (as Palzang said):

    "Once you understand that there is in truth no "I", no "self" that exists apart from and independent of everything else, then the whole question of death and rebirth becomes moot".

    If there is no "I", then how can "I" be reborn? As Elohim reminds us, suffering may continue, but for whom or what? As I say, I can't get my head round it. For me, maybe it's best not to try.

    Martin.
  • edited September 2006
    But isn't counsciousness abstract? We know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but counsciousness is not really matter.

    I consider myself a very happy person. Whether or not my counsciousness continues after death doesn't really matter and is not constructive to this moment and will not make me any more or less happy.
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited September 2006
    I can't get my head round rebirth either - and mostly, I don't try. I liked Palzang's post yesterday (thank you, Palzang) which I thought put things very clearly. For me, it's precisely this (as Palzang said):

    "Once you understand that there is in truth no "I", no "self" that exists apart from and independent of everything else, then the whole question of death and rebirth becomes moot".

    If there is no "I", then how can "I" be reborn? As Elohim reminds us, suffering may continue, but for whom or what? As I say, I can't get my head round it. For me, maybe it's best not to try.

    Martin.


    There is an 'I' that get's reborn. But the 'I' which we mentally refer to is simply a mental construction which is used to refer to the apparent continuity of our personal co-mingling khandhas. But there is no permanent, unchanging, independent entity such as "I" that exists aside from the co-mingingling of the khandhas. In other words, "I" is only a conventional reality, that arises under certain conditions. You might want to have a look at this article by Lama Thubten Yeshe Rimpoche:

    http://www.lamayeshe.com/lamayeshe/whoareyou.shtml

    Hope this helps.

    _/\_
    metta
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited September 2006
    Everyone,

    For whom or what is an improper way of looking at it. Such designations are simply conventions. What matters is that there is suffering. If you suffer, it is a problem—a problem that the Buddha said will not go away on its own. There is nothing to really get your head around besides this idea.
    The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he consumes.' If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The nutriment consciousness is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence; when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'" (SN 12.12)

    I myself do not find consciousness abstract as I can directly experience it every waking moment. If you see something, that is consciousness of the contact between the eye faculty and the object of sight—without all four present, there is no seeing. The only difficult part comes with rebirth.
    The Blessed One said: "Not knowing, not seeing the eye as it actually is present; not knowing, not seeing forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye as they actually are present; not knowing, not seeing whatever arises conditioned through contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is infatuated with the eye... forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the eye and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain. (MN 149)

    Basically, consciousness does not arise on its own after a being dies. Craving is the sustenance that sustains a being when it has yet to be reborn. Through craving, the process of rebirth continues uninterrupted until the craving is removed. Craving is removed by insight into the Four Noble Truths.
    "Of course you are befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you are uncertain. When there is a reason for befuddlement in you, uncertainty arises. I designate the rebirth of one who has sustenance, Vaccha, and not of one without sustenance. Just as a fire burns with sustenance and not without sustenance, even so I designate the rebirth of one who has sustenance and not of one without sustenance." (SN 44.9)

    Nevertheless, no one has to believe in rebirth, or even try to understand it. One can (and should) practice the Noble Eightfold Path regardless, because it leads one to the end of suffering. I am simply trying to help those that are interested in learning more about the teachings on rebirth.

    Sincerely,

    Jason
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited September 2006
    Everyone,

    For those of you who do not mind some heavy reading, I would suggest taking a look at this talk by the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw on the Anattalakkhana Sutta—especially chapter four which deals directly with consciousness.

    Sincerely,

    Jason
  • edited September 2006
    Here's my two cents:

    Are bodies are like computers. Are consciousness is like the files, always changing. And behind the scenes in the OS which makes everything work together. Electricity is used, and necessary, but it is not the "self" of the computer. Take apart the computer and smash them up into bits. All of the matter is still there in one form or another, but you can't retrieve the file. You can melt down and recycle the parts into other computers and things, but that computer is gone.

    Ok, not a perfect metaphor, but it's the best I can do. I also like the candle metaphor.

    As you might have guessed, I don't believe in a soul. I don't think we need to rely on an immortal, mystical self driving the body to explain the workings of the body. No soul, nothing to go on - except karma. Our karma does keep going, affecting people. Example: How different would the world be if even the great grandparents of Caesar/Hitler/Jesus/Lincoln/insert-influential-person decided that they just "weren't in the mood" the night they conceived the grandparents of whomever.
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited September 2006
    not1not2 wrote:
    There is an 'I' that get's reborn. But the 'I' which we mentally refer to is simply a mental construction which is used to refer to the apparent continuity of our personal co-mingling khandhas. But there is no permanent, unchanging, independent entity such as "I" that exists aside from the co-mingingling of the khandhas. In other words, "I" is only a conventional reality, that arises under certain conditions. You might want to have a look at this article by Lama Thubten Yeshe Rimpoche:

    http://www.lamayeshe.com/lamayeshe/whoareyou.shtml

    Hope this helps.

    _/\_
    metta


    Yes, that's the way I understand it too. While consciousness goes on from life to life, it is neither permanent nor unchanging, as Christians believe a soul is or Hindus believe the atman is. It is a mental construct based on our basic delusion of self and other, but it is not affected by death and dissolution as these are not of the mind but physical. Not an easy thing to understand, I know, especially when our social conditioning all our lives has been the exact opposite.

    Palzang
  • BrigidBrigid Veteran
    edited September 2006
    But doesn't the consciousness dissolve at death, or go through some kind of dissolution or something? I think that's what I read when I was trying to prepare myself for a good death. It's all so difficult to grasp. But I want to grasp it. I'm grasping. lol!

    Could it be something like the consciousness dissolves during the process of death but the karmic imprint doesn't and craving sustains the being until conception when a new but not independent consciousness is born? Thus, through karma and craving, the process of rebirth continues uninterrupted?

    Not1, I love that article. It's one of my very favourites. Ever since I read it a few months ago I started calling myself just a "bubble of relativity".

    I really want to understand this the best that I can. I need it so that I can understand the deeper part of impermanence and not-self. But I'm not going to force it. I'll just keep all the neural pathways open.
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited September 2006
    I would say that it's more like the supporting conditions for the body have ceased and, thereby the consciousness associated with the body will cease with it. So, this may be the dissolution you are refering to. Beyond that, I'm not really sure on how buddhism fully explains how a new body is acquired, & how this all really functions. But, fortunately, I'm not so sure it's entirely necessary to know how the 6 sense bases arise beyond the basic understanding that they do, in fact, arise & pass away (with volitional formations as a requisite condition & avijja).

    Now, don't expect a full liberation during the dying process unless your practice has been very deep & thorough. But I don't think you need to be fully equated with the minute technicalities to die well. I think the most important thing is to be very wary of all the desires which will naturally pop up, assuming you are lucid, during the dissolution of body conciousness, as this will greatly determine your rebirth & bring about the nutriment for a new birth. At least that's my basic understanding.

    Anyway, it's bed time. Take care everyone.

    _/\_
    metta
  • edited September 2006
    i'm not sure i want to be reborn.. and i still don't get it lol

    life is painful enough as it is.. and i'm too nice a person to be constantly spawned in this hell-hole
  • edited September 2006
    Hi all,

    This topic boggles my brain. I can't think about without getting bogged down in analytical philosophy - at which point i feel further from the truth. However, based on what i know and experience i have no reason to believe in rebirth as i have never had memories of past lives.

    However, there's just a couple of ideas i'd like to bounce off you guys.

    I once read an idea somewhere that rebirth is like waves in an ocean. Once a wave 'is over' it just disapates back into the sea. Every now and then when a new wave is formed, it contains enough water from the past wave to remember bits and pieces of its life.
    This would mean that there is no direct lineage of rebirth and so i'm not sure how the law of kamma would work (any suggestions?).

    Believing in no soul nor rebirth i am left with the problem of where kamma goes. Is it feasible that your kamma can be inherited by others and so bear fruition that way? Just an idea.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited September 2006
    Palzang wrote:


    It is a mental construct based on our basic delusion of self and other, but it is not affected by death and dissolution as these are not of the mind but physical. Not an easy thing to understand, I know, especially when our social conditioning all our lives has been the exact opposite.

    Palzang

    Think of it this way....
    This 'mental construct - everything we have physically and mentally absorbed so far - is like a jar of marbles....multi-coloured,multi-sized..... and when we 'die', it's as if someone has opened the jar, and poured it into a big bathtub-sized container, full of other marbles.... then you plunge your hands in, and mix them all up.... and refill the jar, marble by marble, for the next stage in the development of this 'mental construct'....

    That's really simplified, and very possibly way off bat.... but it's something I personally use to try to permit my own, feeble 'Light-years-from-Enlightenment' current entity to understand.... a bit.....
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited September 2006
    That can't possibly be, Fed. I lost my marbles years ago!

    Palzang
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited September 2006
    Celebrin wrote:
    i'm not sure i want to be reborn.. and i still don't get it lol

    life is painful enough as it is.. and i'm too nice a person to be constantly spawned in this hell-hole


    Well, of course you don't! That's why the Buddha taught the Dharma, so that beings didn't have to continue on the Wheel of Death and Rebirth!

    Palzang
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited September 2006
    twobitbob wrote:
    Believing in no soul nor rebirth i am left with the problem of where kamma goes. Is it feasible that your kamma can be inherited by others and so bear fruition that way? Just an idea.


    Nope, sorry.

    Palzang
  • edited September 2006
    twobitbob wrote:
    Hi all,



    I once read an idea somewhere that rebirth is like waves in an ocean. Once a wave 'is over' it just disapates back into the sea. Every now and then when a new wave is formed, it contains enough water from the past wave to remember bits and pieces of its life.
    This would mean that there is no direct lineage of rebirth and so i'm not sure how the law of kamma would work (any suggestions?).

    Believing in no soul nor rebirth i am left with the problem of where kamma goes. Is it feasible that your kamma can be inherited by others and so bear fruition that way? Just an idea.

    Since karma to me means my actions, in a way the whole world inherits them. Every action I take, the world will reap the consequences of until it ends.

    I recall an old quote from a Zen book I got a while ago. A layperson asked a great Zen master, "What happens to me after I die?"

    "I don't know," responded the master plainly.

    "But I thought you were a great Zen master," protested the man.

    The master smiled and replied, "Yes, but not a dead one!"
  • edited September 2006
    one thing, how come the population is always increasing in the world, surely that means souls are created without past lives, which again makes no sense to me argueing for reincarnation and rebirth.

    i understand that the pure state of the mind is different from emotional and false perceptions, / the body.

    But its still in the same entity, me and i don't think it can exist outside the body. I find it to be the same as chrsitians belief in heaven or other religions simply telling you that you will live forever, mans desire for immortality.

    Also Buddhist belief system to me is based on questioning and only accepting that which has no questions and is considered truth, so i find it impossible for any person to believe in reincarnation and rebirth and call themselves a buddhist... sigh anyway

    surely realisation is impossible on such a speculative subject and therefore its a personal and flawed belief created by the body and ego's need for eternal life.
  • buddhafootbuddhafoot Veteran
    edited September 2006
    While I don't spend a lot of time regarding rebirth or reincarnation...

    There are other beings on this planet besides humans. There are other beings that are supposed to experience rebirth and reincarnation. For example, there used to be millions of head of buffalo on the N American plains...

    -bf
  • edited September 2006
    Whether we go around and around through various incarnations forever and ever, or there is absolutely nothin after we die, I still think the teachings of the Buddha are just as relevent. Even if we could find a way of living forever in this one lifetime technologically, it would still not address the problem of desire, so like the unhappy rich and the unhappy healthy before them, we'd all of a sudden have the unhappy immortals. Most of what people think they want is not satisfactory once they get it. I guess I rambled a bit and went slightly off-topic. :D

    I personally believe life ends utterly upon physical death. I also understand that Gautama believed in reincarnation as he came from a (proto-)Hindu society, but I don't consider his teachings any less relevant to my life because of this fact.

    This has probably been said over and over on this thread, which I haven't read in it's entirety, but I'm a n00b, so whatevah. :buck:
  • edited September 2006
    yea i admire siddharta and i read books .. buddhist books.. about buddhas teachings but the stories about rebirth and children exping it..

    the whole buddhist masters being reborn again.. i mean really dude.. that can never be prooven that is not mind talking and again contradicts what i understand of the path. And therefore it cannot and should not in my opinion be consider real or the ppl who are 'reborn' near worshipped.

    what we cannot proove or even contemplate as true or not-true should not be practised and thats the way it should stay til we realise the 'truth'.. some subjects like rebirth and god are simply speculative and can never be prooved either way
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited September 2006
    Celebrin,

    I find it extremely peculiar that one person can find it impossible for another person to practice Buddhism and believe in rebirth. It should not strike one as being out of the ordinary — not to mention possible — since the Buddha himself taught rebirth.

    Furthermore, the Buddha did not teach rebirth simply because it was one of the religious fads of that time, but because he experienced the knowledge of the recollection of past lives for himself on the night of his Awakening. The argument that since there is an ever-growing human population, this invalidates the Buddha's teachings on rebirth because “souls must be created without past lives”, is based upon a poor understanding of the Buddha's teachings.

    First, there is no soul in Buddhism. Conditionality does not leave any room for such an idea. However, while the teachings on dependent arising combined with those of kamma and rebirth explain this, it is far too detailed and complex to sufficiently cover here. Secondly, rebirth includes all of the thirty-one planes of existence. To disprove rebirth by such an argument, you would have to count all of the various beings in all of the thirty-one realms.

    While I agree that modern science cannot validate this directly, that does not mean that it cannot be proven—especially through direct experience, which is all the proof a person can truly hold onto as being true. Through meditation, this experience is possible.

    Regards,

    Jason
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited September 2006
    The main problem with an outright rejection of rebirth is that it basically turns Buddhism into a materialistic path. This is problematic, as this view was specifically rejected by the Buddha in more than one place. Additionally, it glosses over all the teachings where the buddha is said to have knowledge of his own arising & passing away and that of others. These are 2 aspects of the Buddha's threefold knowledge (along with kamma & its results). *. And this knowledge & vision is considered necessary for dispassion & emancipation.

    Honestly, while it is not necessary to believe in rebirth (and I openly suggest putting the issue aside for as long as necessary), rejecting it outright is even less necessary. Just focus on the aspects of the path that do make sense to you, and don't worry about rebirth.

    Take care

    _/\_
    metta
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited September 2006
    I agree with Elohim and Not1. You can't be a Buddhist without believing in rebirth. It's really that simple. It's what the Buddha taught, and his path has been proven time and time again in producing enlightened beings, so why would you even question it? The reason you have difficulty with rebirth is due to your ego-clinging which considers your self as real. The point of Buddhism is to get beyond ego-clinging. So why don't you try it and see if it works? It's not something you can figure out and think through. It's really not. You have to apply the technology. If you're not willing to do that, then there's no point. I'd strongly suggest, Celebrin, that you pick up a book on basic Buddhism, such as Walpole Rahula's What the Buddha Taught, to at least have some idea of what Buddhism is about. Based on your post, you really have no understanding at all of what the Buddha taught.

    Palzang
  • edited September 2006
    Palzang wrote:
    I agree with Elohim and Not1. You can't be a Buddhist without believing in rebirth. It's really that simple. It's what the Buddha taught, and his path has been proven time and time again in producing enlightened beings, so why would you even question it? The reason you have difficulty with rebirth is due to your ego-clinging which considers your self as real. The point of Buddhism is to get beyond ego-clinging. So why don't you try it and see if it works? It's not something you can figure out and think through. It's really not. You have to apply the technology. If you're not willing to do that, then there's no point. I'd strongly suggest, Celebrin, that you pick up a book on basic Buddhism, such as Walpole Rahula's What the Buddha Taught, to at least have some idea of what Buddhism is about. Based on your post, you really have no understanding at all of what the Buddha taught.

    Palzang

    I don't think it has anything to do with my ego-clinging. I can be just as joyful in this life without believing in rebirth. I don't believe in a real self or soul.

    I just have trouble believing in anything just because it worked for others or someone says so. In a way, it almost appears to be very dangerous to do so. The only absolute personal maxim that I live by is "Nothing goes unquestioned."

    I question rebirth for the same reasons I question God, the Bible, the church, teachers, authorities, government, or anyone else in power. I am perfectly happy with or without believing in rebirth in my life. It doesn't make a difference.
  • edited September 2006
    Palzang wrote:
    I agree with Elohim and Not1. You can't be a Buddhist without believing in rebirth. It's really that simple. It's what the Buddha taught, and his path has been proven time and time again in producing enlightened beings, so why would you even question it? The reason you have difficulty with rebirth is due to your ego-clinging which considers your self as real. The point of Buddhism is to get beyond ego-clinging. So why don't you try it and see if it works? It's not something you can figure out and think through. It's really not. You have to apply the technology. If you're not willing to do that, then there's no point. I'd strongly suggest, Celebrin, that you pick up a book on basic Buddhism, such as Walpole Rahula's What the Buddha Taught, to at least have some idea of what Buddhism is about. Based on your post, you really have no understanding at all of what the Buddha taught.

    Palzang
    I hope this post was satire. Anyway, Buddhism changes with the different cultures it cross-pollinates with, so you can have all the tribal deities and mysticism you want, (Tibetan) or a bare bones approach that goes light on the abstractions and heavy on the meditation, (Zen.) There's no one, "right" form of Buddhism, lest we become like the other sky-god religions that are slowly destroying civilization and the rest of the planet.

    The purpose of this subforum is to talk about the forms Buddhism is taking in this modern world, and it will be no different in the West, where a pro-science, gender neutral, egalitarian approach I'm sure will evolve. Will it rub a lot of people the wrong way? Maybe, but change is never easy, but it is required of everyone and everything. Abstracts that are impossible to prove will probably fall by the wayside for many Western Buddhists. Many of them may not even want to apply the term Buddhism for the religious connotations it evokes.

    Besides, for those Buddhists who do believe in reincarnation, the whole point is to escape the cycle of rebirth and death by following the teachings, for those that don't believe, the point is to try to attain enlightenment in this lifetime by following the teachings. If we only disagree about something neither of us will ever prove to one another, and is irrelevant to the life we lead now, what's the point of contention? (Although, if this were a courtroom or a Logic 101 class, the "Burden of Proof" would be on the more specacular claimant, luckily Buddhism is neither of these things. :) )

    Of course, I'll accept not being a real Buddhist if I have to believe in Bronze Age faery tales, because the reason I got into it was that it was proven mental technology, for the most part, without the dogmatism, aggression and anti-intellectualism of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Also, please don't misinterpret me as saying that enlightenment can be reached through logic and thinking, I realize the folly in this, but completely turning off the rational faculties and filling my mind with legends of saints and demigods who sit in caves for thousands of years without eating is not a step I'm willing to take. I'm really positive about the direction modern Buddhism is taking.

    :usflag:
  • not1not2not1not2 Veteran
    edited September 2006
    I'm not going so far as to say that you can't be a buddhist if you don't believe in rebirth, but I will say that if you dismiss it as a simple cultural phenomena or some archaic vedic-influenced belief that the buddha threw in to appease the current spiritual scene, then I would say that you are in the wrong. This teaching has been directly verified by masters over the past 2500 years. It is also integral to the buddhist teachings of karma & dependent origination. Now, you don't need to believe in rebirth to come to some understanding of these ideas, but your understanding will not mesh completely with what the buddha taught. Still, it is arguable that we should concern ourselves more with moment to moment rebirth than life to life, imo.

    Beyond that, you are free to be a rational skeptic all you want. In that case, follow the advice in the Kalama Sutta. But do keep in mind that this advice was given to non-buddhists and that the Buddha taught more authoritatively on these subjects to his disciples. Generally, to take refuge in the Triple Gem, it is understood that we take the buddha's words as authoritative and use the tools he gave us to verify them in our own experience.

    take care

    _/\_
    metta
Sign In or Register to comment.