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.
An analogy I've suggested before for rebirth is the way in which the "you" of tomorrow arises in dependence on the "you" of today - but the you of tomorrow won't be the same as the you of today. On the other hand, if we were talking about a ( permanent ) soul, then the you of tomorrow would be the same as the you of today.
We are all, ultimately, reincarnated stars and when our telescopes show us a supernova that destroyed its worlds and spit out heavy elements into the heavens, we see the deaths and births of multitudes.
Does that mean I'm the star that died to give me birth? I've been told I light up a room when I arrive, but no, I'm not that star. Neither am I my parents, although I have an even closer connection including sharing their very blueprint for my being and people tell me I look like and act like my grandfather more each day.
So what am I? Am I even the same young man who survived a shy childhood by haunting the library for flights of fantasy and dreamed of finding a girl who would let me get to second base? Not hardly. I remember him, and get to wear a hand-me-down body I wish he'd taken better care of.
Just so you know I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with what you said or implying you were speaking on behalf of all Christians.
Anyway, this is a summary consensus other Christians:
*The soul is not pre-existent. *The soul is not eternal by nature. *The soul and body are not separate entities but can only be considered in relation. *The soul and body are not static but dynamic and changeable. *The soul is not the person, but along with the body, are energies that reveal the person. *The person made in the image and likeness of God can be reduced to nothing less than a mystery.
To further clarify St. Maximus in his Ambigua 7 says:
If the body and the soul are parts of man, as we have seen, it must be granted that as parts each necessarily bears a relation to something other than itself. It is only as they are related to each other that they have the whole predicated of them. Something that is always spoken in relation to something else must have come into existence with the other. For the parts by coming together constitute the whole, and what each is in essence can be distinguished only in thought. Therefore since they are parts of man it is impossible for either the soul or body to exist before the other or indeed exist after the other in time. If that were not the case the necessary relation each has to the other would be destroyed.
Further, if the soul is a species before it is joined to the body, and the body is a species before it is joined to the soul, and each, soul to the body and body to soul, by being joined to the other brings about an entity that is different from what each is in itself, then there are two possibilities. Either they undergo a change or what they become is what they are by nature. If it is because of undergoing something, what they undergo makes them into something they were not. Which is to say they were corrupted. But if what they become is what they are by nature, this will always happen because it is their nature. The soul would never cease being reincarnated, nor the body being reanimated. In my view, however, this is not what happens. The constitution of the whole as a species has nothing to do with having undergone something nor with natural power of parts coming together with each other. Rather there is a simultaneous coming to be of the whole species with its parts. It is impossible for one species to change into another species without corruption...
Therefore the human being is composed of the soul and body, for soul and body are indissolubly understood to be parts of the whole human species. Soul and body came into being at the same moment and their essential difference from each other in no way whatsoever impairs the logoi that inhere naturally and essentially in them. For that reason it is inconceivable to speak of the soul and body except in relation to each other. It is only as they come together to form a particular person that they exist. If either existed before the other, it would be understood as the soul and body of the one to which the other belongs. The relation between them is immutable.
Also, there was a discussion centered around the following quote by St. Anastasios that Fr Stephen Freeman referenced on one of his Orthodox blog articles you might want to check out.
... human nature is created and so, is unavoidably mortal; with death man’s entire psychosomatic being comes to an end. All of his psychological and mental functions cease to function: his self-conscience, reasoning, judgment, memory, imagination, and desire. Man is no longer able to function through the parts of the body in order to speak, to call to memory, to distinguish, to desire, to reason, to be impassioned, and to see” St. Anastasios of Sinai (Odigos, Migne P.G. 89, 36)
@lobster In your fox/worms situation, is Enlightenment even possible? I think we can agree that even the Buddha was consumed by something when he died. If that's the case, why even strive for enlightenment? The end goal just seems to be missing in that situation (Nirvana). Unless, of course, Nirvana is just a human state when you're at peace and there's nothing supernatural about it.
I think this entire topic is relative and will vary from person to person. In this case, @lobster sees what Buddha was teaching as advice to make your one human life better, and that rebirth was just a metaphor for the cycle of life. For me, I see was most of what the Buddha taught as literal (we have more than one life, nirvana is a state that continues after the human life is ended, etc.)
Since when is Wikipedia the go to source for new Buddhist questions?
Sometimes Wikipedia has a more neutral...just factual... way of covering topics.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
A long-time member of another Buddhist forum spent around a year - perhaps or probably more - preparing a whole section devoted to Buddhism - when he submitted it, he received a commendation from the Wiki founders for an extraordinarily thorough and extremely well-researched piece of work. I believe they then 'sealed' the articles to prevent 'pollution' or corruption. So not all of wiki is sticky....
I see was most of what the Buddha taught as literal
You do? Many do. Bodhidharma, Padsambhavna and Shakyamuni may have more in common with many sources and literature rather than the prevalent faith of canonical dogma. Is reincaceration the scientific evolution or intelligent design of another time and era?
Don't believe me, Puddha Cat, Ceiling Cat or the Wikid. Remember you have the ability to use your mind, experience and discernment.
< Pali Canon dates from 500 hundred years after the Buddha and probably were the work of Buddhaghosa and his tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhaghosa
If that's the case, then isn't all of what we regard as Buddhism compromised? Even in a philosophy like Buddhism, it requires some faith to hope that what we are learning is what Siddartha Gautama really did and wanted us to learn.
Perhaps if we think there is only one perfected awakener . . .
That's deep... I like that. What if Mahavira was enlightened? What if that wise old man down the street who had never heard of Buddha was enlightened? Thought provoking.
On the other hand, if Buddha was using rebirth and Nirvana as a metaphor, what do you feel about karma? Do good actions still result in good effects in this life? And if so, how can you scientifically explain that?
On the other hand, if Buddha was using rebirth and Nirvana as a metaphor, what do you feel about karma? Do good actions still result in good effects in this life? And if so, how can you scientifically explain that?
Oh please, let's not go down the 'scientific explanation' route regarding Karma.
We cannot know the laws of karma. The Buddha taught us that, and he was right. It's just too much for our poor little brains to encompass. We get scrambled AND fried.
know it is generally accepted by Buddhists that there is not an eternal soul inside the body. But if this is true, how is it that we can be reborn? Is it even "us" being reborn, or is it just a portion of our life energy?
I read that when the Buddha became enlightened, he could see all the forms of life he had been in the past (humans, elephants, horses, etc.) accumulating wisdom through the eons. If that was so, wouldn't there have been an eternal Buddha always there, taking up the bodies of those living beings, and that energy staying as one so that he could remember it all when he became enlightened? That sounds kind of like a soul to me. I know there's probably a good explanation for this..... go easy on me, I'm new!
@NextElement One black friend of mine said just watching a Buddhist trying to dance was all the proof she needed that Buddhists lack soul. I think my moves were being mocked but anyway, here's my dance.......
My experience with past lives have mostly offered the chance to experience (what first appears to be) another's ignorance. It is not really another as you soon find that their tendency towards a particular type of ignorance also matches your own. So...what you share is that ignorance. The real wisdom offered is from whatever way you can resolve the attachments which brought about that ignorance.
Thinking that a past life was actually who you were, is understandable but it is simply looking at it through ego colored glasses. We are comprised of endless influences. To identify yourself with any particular one is to only invite the birth of future ignorance's that some other poor bugger will eventually have to dance with.
< Pali Canon dates from 500 hundred years after the Buddha and probably were the work of Buddhaghosa and his tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhaghosa
If that's the case, then isn't all of what we regard as Buddhism compromised? Even in a philosophy like Buddhism, it requires some faith to hope that what we are learning is what Siddartha Gautama really did and wanted us to learn.
I think the answer is no.
If a teaching is valid -- meaning it works -- does it matter whether it was said by Buddha or Bugs Bunny?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
One of the best universally deep and meaningful questions....
If a teaching is valid -- meaning it works -- does it matter whether it was said by Buddha or Bugs Bunny?
I agree with @federica, we make associations Buddha = wise Bugs = 'wascally wabbit' So when the revered and august Lord of Dharma says something contrary to our toon we may pontificate over its nature. When a toon, child, beginner, fantasy construct or Mary Poppins says something valuable we miss its potential.
Mary Poppins: In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun, and - SNAP - the job's a game!
The concept of soul, in Hinduism, in Christianity, etc ... this is a concept that depends on "me" being solid and tangible.
In Buddhism, it is said that what we think of as "me" is nothing more than the repetition of habits. It is this repetition of actions, thoughts, and emotions that makes "me" seem solid and tangible.
Yes, we exist, but not as "me" .. just as .. consciousness overlaid with habits and patterns, and mistaking those habits and patterns AS us, AS "me".
What is it that rebirths? The set of habits and patterns. The thing about rebirth is that if you could see your previous lives, you would not say, "Oh, there is ME in a previous life!". Instead, you would see that what is you was once someone else .. and you would see that the habits of that lifetime continue in who "you" are now.
This is how it has been explained to our dharma group by our teacher (one of the Dalai Lama's monks. When students ask our teacher how to find out who they were in a past life, he says that if they want to know who they were, they only have to look at who they are now. Understand too that Buddhism is about changing our habits and patterns.
I know it is generally accepted by Buddhists that there is not an eternal soul inside the body. But if this is true, how is it that we can be reborn? Is it even "us" being reborn, or is it just a portion of our life energy?
I read that when the Buddha became enlightened, he could see all the forms of life he had been in the past (humans, elephants, horses, etc.) accumulating wisdom through the eons. If that was so, wouldn't there have been an eternal Buddha always there, taking up the bodies of those living beings, and that energy staying as one so that he could remember it all when he became enlightened? That sounds kind of like a soul to me. I know there's probably a good explanation for this..... go easy on me, I'm new!
I know it is generally accepted by Buddhists that there is not an eternal soul inside the body. But if this is true, how is it that we can be reborn? Is it even "us" being reborn, or is it just a portion of our life energy?
I read that when the Buddha became enlightened, he could see all the forms of life he had been in the past (humans, elephants, horses, etc.) accumulating wisdom through the eons. If that was so, wouldn't there have been an eternal Buddha always there, taking up the bodies of those living beings, and that energy staying as one so that he could remember it all when he became enlightened? That sounds kind of like a soul to me. I know there's probably a good explanation for this..... go easy on me, I'm new!
I don't understand this soul and rebirth thing but somewhere I have read that rebirth is something like the change in energy one learns in Science. At one moment, you have chemical energy, then you find that this energy has changed to kinetic energy or potential energy. A permanent entity like a 'soul' is not involved and yet, the energy change occurs. I don't really understand how Buddha could see all the forms of life in the past but I am very sure he does not have to be always there, eternal - I just watched the pilot of "Twilight Zone" in YouTube. It is such an old movie and I probably was a kid when it was shown in TV. The point is I don't have to be there then.
@NextElement said:
I know it is generally accepted by Buddhists that there is not an eternal soul inside the body. But if this is true, how is it that we can be reborn? Is it even "us" being reborn, or is it just a portion of our life energy?
In Buddhism the âtman (sorry for the Sanskrit) does not transmigrate. It is consciousness or vijñâna that transmigrates—big difference. In other words, it is due to the growth of consciousness that the rebirth-formation process takes place.
Comments
On the other hand, if we were talking about a ( permanent ) soul, then the you of tomorrow would be the same as the you of today.
Does that mean I'm the star that died to give me birth? I've been told I light up a room when I arrive, but no, I'm not that star. Neither am I my parents, although I have an even closer connection including sharing their very blueprint for my being and people tell me I look like and act like my grandfather more each day.
So what am I? Am I even the same young man who survived a shy childhood by haunting the library for flights of fantasy and dreamed of finding a girl who would let me get to second base? Not hardly. I remember him, and get to wear a hand-me-down body I wish he'd taken better care of.
So what am I?
I am me.
Just so you know I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with what you said or implying you were speaking on behalf of all Christians.
Anyway, this is a summary consensus other Christians:
*The soul is not pre-existent.
*The soul is not eternal by nature.
*The soul and body are not separate entities but can only be considered in relation.
*The soul and body are not static but dynamic and changeable.
*The soul is not the person, but along with the body, are energies that reveal the person.
*The person made in the image and likeness of God can be reduced to nothing less than a mystery.
To further clarify St. Maximus in his Ambigua 7 says: Also, there was a discussion centered around the following quote by St. Anastasios that Fr Stephen Freeman referenced on one of his Orthodox blog articles you might want to check out. glory2godforallthings.com/2013/12/16/falling-between-the-cracks/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization
Since when is Wikipedia the go to source for new Buddhist questions?
So not all of wiki is sticky....
Bodhidharma, Padsambhavna and Shakyamuni may have more in common with many sources and literature rather than the prevalent faith of canonical dogma. Is reincaceration the scientific evolution or intelligent design of another time and era?
Don't believe me, Puddha Cat, Ceiling Cat or the Wikid. Remember you have the ability to use your mind, experience and discernment.
Pali Canon dates from 500 hundred years after the Buddha and probably were the work of Buddhaghosa and his tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhaghosa
Personally I feel you have the potential to be awake and a Buddha (hope I have not compromised you).
Mr Cushion says he has never been compromised.
On the other hand, if Buddha was using rebirth and Nirvana as a metaphor, what do you feel about karma? Do good actions still result in good effects in this life? And if so, how can you scientifically explain that?
We cannot know the laws of karma.
The Buddha taught us that, and he was right.
It's just too much for our poor little brains to encompass. We get scrambled AND fried.
The law of Karma is an unconjecturable.
Oh sure.... we can talk about it til the purple cows come home to roost in the hen house, but we can never 'scientifically explain' it.
One black friend of mine said just watching a Buddhist trying to dance was all the proof she needed that Buddhists lack soul.
I think my moves were being mocked but anyway, here's my dance.......
My experience with past lives have mostly offered the chance to experience (what first appears to be) another's ignorance. It is not really another as you soon find that their tendency towards a particular type of ignorance also matches your own. So...what you share is that ignorance. The real wisdom offered is from whatever way you can resolve the attachments which brought about that ignorance.
Thinking that a past life was actually who you were, is understandable but it is simply looking at it through ego colored glasses. We are comprised of endless influences. To identify yourself with any particular one is to only invite the birth of future ignorance's that some other poor bugger will eventually have to dance with.
If a teaching is valid -- meaning it works -- does it matter whether it was said by Buddha or Bugs Bunny?
"Nyeeeh...What's up Doc?"
Buddha = wise
Bugs = 'wascally wabbit'
So when the revered and august Lord of Dharma says something contrary to our toon we may pontificate over its nature.
When a toon, child, beginner, fantasy construct or Mary Poppins says something valuable we miss its potential.
Mary Poppins: In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun, and - SNAP - the job's a game!
. . . and now back to the soul searching . . .
In Buddhism, it is said that what we think of as "me" is nothing more than the repetition of habits. It is this repetition of actions, thoughts, and emotions that makes "me" seem solid and tangible.
Yes, we exist, but not as "me" .. just as .. consciousness overlaid with habits and patterns, and mistaking those habits and patterns AS us, AS "me".
What is it that rebirths? The set of habits and patterns.
The thing about rebirth is that if you could see your previous lives, you would not say, "Oh, there is ME in a previous life!". Instead, you would see that what is you was once someone else .. and you would see that the habits of that lifetime continue in who "you" are now.
This is how it has been explained to our dharma group by our teacher (one of the Dalai Lama's monks.
When students ask our teacher how to find out who they were in a past life, he says that if they want to know who they were, they only have to look at who they are now. Understand too that Buddhism is about changing our habits and patterns.
something travels from one birth to another.
you can call it a soul if you wish.
but Buddha said that there is no eternal entity.
ie. the 'soul' is not eternal.
Buddha is gone, Buddha's 'soul' is no more.
that is why enlightenment is called nibbana,
ie to extinguish ........
I don't really understand how Buddha could see all the forms of life in the past but I am very sure he does not have to be always there, eternal - I just watched the pilot of "Twilight Zone" in YouTube. It is such an old movie and I probably was a kid when it was shown in TV. The point is I don't have to be there then.
In Buddhism the âtman (sorry for the Sanskrit) does not transmigrate. It is consciousness or vijñâna that transmigrates—big difference. In other words, it is due to the growth of consciousness that the rebirth-formation process takes place.
Hope this helps
If souls don't exist in Buddhism, they can't be reborn.
Something else is reborn. Seed consciousness.
There is nothing to die or be reborn... Is that what we might call transcendent wisdom, and might that be mistaken for a soul.
Mettha