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.
Investigating reincarnation.
hermitwin
Veteran
0
Comments
Those of you more knowledgeable -- what is that statement referring to?
Thanks.
But seriously folks, it the essential difference between the two can't be explained in a paragraph (of normal length), I'll be surprised.
I know that's not a particularly good understanding.
But what is interesting to me is how much arguing is done about the differences between 2 things that nobody can prove actually happen.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
It might be wrong but I thought
rebirth just referred to the aggregates coalescing to produce a new life
whereas
reincarnation referred to that inertial energy from one death that was specifically recognizable in the next life.
Missed the link while shooting from the hip. My bad!
I was just thinking that one sentence would do it.
Reincarnation is the return of a soul or atman whereas rebirth is the continuation of the mind.
But I could be wrong - I frequently am
In metta,
Raven
in the next life shares similarities with
the being in the present life.
in hinduism, the soul/atman is eternal,
so going into the next life is like a person
changing clothes or shedding skin.
you are the same person, just in a different
body.
in buddhism, there is strong connection
between the previous life and the present.
but there is no soul/atman that is permanent.
here, at newbuddhist, rebirth is the prefferred
term used by members who does not believe in
reincarnation.
The crucial question however is if I will experience this next life or if it will be someone else.
That’s a clear and essential difference. The hammer will come down on someone else’s thumb or on my thumb, and that will make a difference to me.
There is one specific me; it is linked to one specific neural network and will experience the qualia of a unique set of events.
The question is what this ability to experience this life as my life (qualia) exactly is.
When we understand better what subjective conscious experience exactly is we can start asking what happens to it when our brains stop functioning.
Do I get a prize?
I don't see why one view or the other will reduce clinging to the notion that my self will end at death then be reborn.
The supposed distinction seems like just words to me. Not too important.
For one thing, it depends how far into the teachings you want to go. For example, I would say one can live by the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, and the 5 basic Precepts without going into the difference between reincarnation and rebirth...because in the end, what difference will it make to a living person.
Additionally, how interested one is in the topic may depend on whether you look at Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy.
But, let me ask you a question. I assume you believe it is rebirth. If tomorrow you definitively found out it was reincarnation, how would your daily life change?
In the suttas the second Noble Truth is expressed in terms of craving for rebirth, and Right View also refers to it. Also the distinction between re-incarnation and rebirth rests on an understanding of anatta and dependent arising, both of which are pivotal.
I think it's one thing to properly understand these teachings and then decide they can be set aside as not relevant to one's daily practice. But it's another thing entirely to ignore or marginalise them, based on feelings of aversion.
But you also failed to answer the question, so I'll ask it more simply.
If today you thought rebirth was correct, but tomorrow found reincarnation was correct, how would it change how you live your life?
Reicarnation would have to be another word because rebirth and reincarnation are translated into English as two words. I am not aware of reincarnation existing in the sutras. So it could just be a myth to explain the world like the mountains being made of a norse God's legs when he lies down.
And then I think tulkus were added though there may have been the phenomena of tulkus before. If so it would have to be that the phenomena was not publicized ie the tulkus were in secrecy.
1ignorance
2karma
3consciousness
4namo rupa
5contact
6desire (can't think of the word)
7craving
8becoming
9birth
10death
You can see I am missing some probably along with my marbles, ha!
@Jeffrey
I took a peek and according to accesstoinsight in Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta the word Uppajjati seems to be used...
According to the wikipedia on the 12 nidanas the word Jati
is used... I know too little Pali to make any sense out of it.
BTW why do you ask?
/Victor
Translated from the Milindapanha, a Northern Buddhist work composed between 100 BCE and 200 CE , but was considered orthodox by the Southern Buddhists of Ceylon, Burma, and Siam contained in the book “Buddhism In Translation” by Henry Clarke Warren:
In four sentences:
“Bhante Nagasena,” said the king, “what is it that is born into the next existence?”
“Your Majesty,” said the elder, “it is name and form that is born into the next existence.”
Is it the same name and form that is born into the next existence?”
“Your Majesty, it is not the same name and form that is born into existence; but with this name and form, one does a deed-it may be good, or it may be wicked-and by reason of this deed another name and form is born into the next existence.”
Translated from the Visuddhi-Magga (chap. Xvii) contained in the book “Buddhism In Translation” by Henry Clarke Warren
In three sentences:
“It is only elements of being possessing a dependence that arrive at a new existence; none transmigrated from the last existence, nor are they in the new existence without causes contained in the old. By this is said that it is only elements of being, with form or without, but possessing dependence, that arrive at a new existence. There is no entity, no living principle; no elements of being transmigrated from the last existence into the present one; nor, on the other hand, do they appear in the present existence without causes in that one.”
In three sentences:
“Now while consciousness still subsists, in as much as desire and ignorance have not been abandoned and the evil of the object is hidden by that ignorance, desire inclines the consciousness to the object; and the karma that sprang up along with consciousness impels it toward the object...
Here the former consciousness, from its passing out of existence, is called passing away, and the latter, from its being reborn into a new existence, is called rebirth. But it must be understood that this latter consciousness did not come to the present existence from the previous one, and also that it is only to causes contained in the old existence, - namely, to karma called predispositions, to inclination, an object, etc., - that its present appearance is due.”
On Reincarnation
In two sentences:
I don't know much about the notion of an eternal soul, but it suggests that it is a distinct entity separate from the body with the coming together of the two bringing about an entity which is entirely different from what each is in itself. This can only occur by either undergoing a change or by becoming what they are by nature. In the latter case the soul would never cease being reincarnated and the body reanimated.
An Aside
In two sentences:
The notion of eternal soul is foreign to patristic Christian tradition, though many among Christians and Buddhists seem to assume an eternal soul is a commonly held Christian belief. I mention this, because even the website @vinlyn referenced here has made that assumption, and I have found it in other commentaries and writings of contemporary Buddhist practitioners and mediators of note.
Thanks for letting us know about your expeditions in the scripture!
I think there has been some discussions on this site about it and there are plenty on other sites.
Probably you know that there are two major ways of seeing the DO? The first as spanning over several lifetimes and one as describing the moment to moment rebirth of the self.
Mostly western buddhists and in particular secular buddhists tend to disapprove of the first but rather embrace the last.
But my intuition is that these two views are not in opposition but maybe more understandable if studied together.
I can not say I have gotten far on my mission but what I have been doing is to try to understand the suttas explanations of the DO in each of the two ways the DO is understood. To see if I can find any contradictions or if I can get a better understanding from each explanation.
In the moment to moment understanding birth or rebirth is supposed to mean the rebirth of the self and understanding why no self will be reborn if our knowleadge of the Dhamma is perfected is not difficult to understand.
In the other case where birth or rebirth is supposed to mean reincarnation one way I can understand no rebirth will occur if ignorance is obliterated is because in the case the being is waiting to be reborn it is said to be "craving sustained". So without craving no rebirth can occur.
But I am just guessing really. Am still trying to understand everything. I would welcome any and all input on this.
/Victor
For some Buddhist schools the teachings on rebirth and kamma are central, for other schools these teachings are peripheral. But with the exception of secular Buddhism I don't know of any schools that reject these teachings.
I don't see the relevance of what I personally believe or assume.
abhinibbatto ; Reborn in another existence.
:grr:
Time does nor arise uniquely among phenomena independently .
Time arises with phassa/sparsa.
Punnabhava requires ayidya. It does not require temporality.
I have seen an analogy made with the Big Bang..lets assume that the BBT is true.
An objection often voiced is 'what happened before the Big Bang ..... and its a non sequitur.
There was no 'before' ..time arose WITH the Big Bang. It did not precede it.
Just so, time arises for the subject, with phassa.