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.
BUDDHISTS ON REINCARNATION??
buddhagrace
New
Hey, so basically i have read so many things from different sources about Buddhists beliefs on reincarnation... unfortunately they all say different? I understand that different districts of Buddhism believe different things.. could someone possibly explain what each of these societys believe in? As i'm unsure what is most suitable for me!
thanks
thanks
0
Comments
The best answer will depend on what you're hoping to get from practicing Buddhism. Can you tell us a bit about that?
For me, the only thing I decided was that I do believe in rebirth. The details of it aren't of concern to me because no one truly knows what happens when we die until we are the ones who died. So the details I don't give much weight to. Just to realize that I do believe in it and the very basics of what it means (versus a soul reincarnation). The details in it, I believe a bit differently than what my teacher teaches, but I'm ok with that, and so is he. My ideas about it have refined and changed and I expect they will continue to do so.
no need to concern yourself with rebirth/reincaceration/transition except in the sense of the death of old ideas and the birth of new comprehensions
Live Long and Prosper
"Rebirth" is what happens whether you like it or not.
Why do we need to think that anyone knows what happens after death or that
belief itself somehow controls anything that happens after death.
I have yet to find relying on any magical thinking has ever aided my awakening from my own ignorance..
That is a fact.
Many westerners like Buddha's teachings but many cannot
accept reincarnation.
So, reincarnation is the Buddha's teaching which has the most
resistance amongst westerners. I am generalising of course.
It is a cultural thing.
Most people in Asia have no problem believing and accepting reincarnation.
While reincarnation is more popular in some areas than others,
Buddhist scholars unrelated to geological location continue to place your "fact" as very much subject to interpretation.
It has always been that way in every culture and in every religion and not even in religion alone.
For some people the sun rises in the east and sets in the west; just like it did for cavemen. They have no desire to look into astronomy.
He did? I thought he taught rebirth. I thought it was mainly the Tibetans who brought reincarnation into it.
Western Buddhists mainly believe in the big dirt nap. There is no again birth. That's it. This means that nirvana for them is mystical death. Many Asian Buddhists believe differently. Consciousness transmigrates. We are reborn again and again. To escape the cycle of rebirths (samsaral) we have to realize nirvana.
I don't think you can make a claim about what "Western Buddhists" mainly think unless you have spoken to a majority of them. They are a pretty vast group.
it. This means that nirvana for them is mystical death. Many Asian Buddhists believe differently. Consciousness transmigrates. We are reborn again and again. To escape the cycle of rebirths (samsaral) we have to realize nirvana.
The views of reincarnation are radically different through
self colored glasses as opposed to selfless glasses.
One sees such a journey as a fearful loss to hope against,
whereas
the other sees that was never any graspable essence to lose hold of.
Boy, I don't know where you got your info, but among the Buddhists I know personally, and that's a bunch, I think there's very few who don't have a strong belief in rebirth.
Of course being a Buddhist has nothing to do with what you believe.
Where did you get your info?
Stephen Batchelor/the secular Buddhists. Of course they didn't say "the big dirt nap" but any close reading of their doctrine clearly, in my opinion, is not supportive of rebirth/reincarnation. Personally, I regard them as rebirth-deniers.
Okay, it happens, I was one that had numerous questions and concerns, some to the point of upright fear. But, I learned, from help of those of this board and others who were able to answer my questions, that. It happens. Do I have control over the outcome, I'll see eventually. Should I concern my time in this, nope, expect death, but do not guide your life for this one purpose.
But Stepher Batchelor and those who follow him are hardly a full (or even a large partial) section of western Buddhists. I have heard his name, but I know nothing else about him. I certainly don't follow him nor do I agree with him on rebirth if he indeed disagrees with it. Not a single Buddhist I talk with on a regular basis completely rejects the idea of rebirth.
well i am trying to be a better person out of it and find some sort of purpose out of my life... if that helps?
the way i interpreted my findings was that reincarnation is something that happens after we die straight away. i've always believed in reincarnation and i do not reject the soul. does this not make me a buddhist?
also my interpretation of enlightenement is when you're at complete content with everything in your life, like true contentment. is this correct?
Except if one wants to understand what Buddhism actually teaches.
Belief does not define a Buddhist.
The Buddha's teaching was supportive if not endorsing of rebirth and rejected "soul"
According to teachings on the 12 Nidanas
rebirth occurs in every moment.
Personally, I don't see any significant differences. Most of the traditional traditions generally same the same thing. Reborn in samsara over and over and enlightenment breaks that chain.
I have not encountered the separation of rebirth and reincarnation in Asia.
It is only in the west that this distinction is made.
Once again, it boils down to westerners find the idea of reincarnation
hard to swallow.
The pali word punaruppatti means rebirth or reincarnation.
Here Bhikkhu Bodhi explains.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha058.htm
Once again with generalizing what westerners believe, lol. I don't think it's that it's hard to swallow. Many don't believe in it because of their believe in God and Heaven. That's ok. For me I find it helpful to separate the 2 because for what I have read in everything from various transpersonal psychology textbooks to Edgar Cayce to many other things, there is a difference. Reincarnation includes the soul, which in those readings I have done, includes the "I" of who we are. Our self-identifying properties that in Buddhism we are taught don't really exist. Because of the reading I have done, I can't use the terms interchangably because one suggests something very different and somewhat in opposition to what I now believe. That doesn't mean other people don't have different understandings. And it makes sense that in countries where reincarnation and rebirth are widely believed, there is no reason to differentiate the terms. But it comes down to whether you believe in a soul or not, and if you do, what you believe that soul to be and whether that fits into your understanding of Buddhism or not. For me, they don't match up and so rebirth is a better term for me to differentiate. it has nothing to do with my being a westerner and reincarnation being hard to swallow. I have believed in it from a very young age, before I even knew it had a word to go with it. But as my understanding has grown and change, the terminology for me had to change for me to keep things straight.
I don't know about others, but to me rebirth/reincarnation is something philosophically interesting to ponder about; but ultimately we can't know for sure if it's true (if at all).
My advice? By all means stimulate your brain and mind with ideas and philosophies of what could be true, but remember that your life now (the one that you know you're living in) is more important. Better to make good use of your time on what you know you can do, rather than on what may or may not be real.
I'm happy to argue reincarnation with anyone, but you are asking for a plain and simple explanation. Put simply, you can't proceed from one moment to another without space (be MINDFUL OF THE GAP)
The world can be viewed in 2 (or 3) ways as a continuum, where the world flows from one moment into another without breaking up.
or it might be viewed as discrete moment to moment intervals - imagine you can slow down and view a film where the picture can be seen to change frame by frame, there are subtle differences between each shot, but no 2 shots are the same or they would represent the same moment.
There is no right way to view it (3) - and that is the right way. Look up zenos paradoxes.
Enlightenment (don't fuss about it) it's just an awakening, how you want to awake is something that if determined by you is not an awakening, but inspired by you, is.
The subtlety of buddhism, is that you can't describe it - it has to be experienced, and recognised as a recognised experience. Not sure if I'm describing it very well. That is why meditation, is a key, 'temet nosce' is something you should become familiar with...
Mettha
@buddhagrace, you'll hear and read many things on this and other subjects of Buddhism. One of the major points of the teachings is to reason "The" Buddha had this to say (possibly) I found it on a website but it's put much better than I would...
To the seekers of truth the Buddha says:
"Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).
"But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to ruin and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them.
"When you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly."
I found it here...http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm
Wise post @DharmaMcBum
Do not accept anything you may see, hear, feel, smell or taste, unless you have mindfully engaged in the perceptions that appear in your awareness, and then you will know your self.
I don't know @anataman... So many long words of wisdom from the Buddha carefully found and copied and pasted and you go and boil it down to one and a half.... sigh.... mutter mutter...
Gosh imagine being reborn as most Buddhists . . .
All those certainties, uncertainties etc . . .
. . . makes the need for awakening in this life a real priority . . .
Too harsh? Ah well, maybe 'next time' I'll be kinder . . .
How do you feel getting the "proper" understanding of reincarnation/rebirth will help you with your stated purpose?
Not according to the suttas - that's a modern interpretation.
Yes, that's a big part of it.
Ockham's razor:a useful tool
I like reincarnation because it is easy to understand, and is the next step in understanding conditionality associated with the concept of interdependent coarising for me:
beginning middle end - repeat
Mettha
I don't know about that.....
And so what if it's a modern interpretation?
I do know because I've read the suttas extensively. Modern interpretations are fine, but I tend to question them when they contradict the suttas. For example some people interpret dependent origination in a purely psychological way, but that isn't supported by the suttas.
Neither is it denied by the suttas. And I have an extensive knowledge of them too.
Ajahn Buddhadasa's deployment of the D.O. model is far more convincing to me than any literalist view. ( he without doubt had a far more extensive knowledge of the suttas than either you or I.)
And imo his interpretation is far more coherent in terms of the Buddha's Dharma than a view of D.O. as a description of an ontological reality.
But it isn't supported by the suttas. That's my point.
At the heart of the Buddhadasa view is the idea of time as one more product of D.O. rather than as the field and ground in which D.O. takes place.
He says
' When the Buddha spoke about the Unborn, Unmade, Unfabricated, Unbecome, he was pointing beyond a process which we can approach by ontology. '
The idea of a linear process which can be observed in time is precisely what the Buddha cautioned us against when contrasting his teaching of punabhava with the Hindu idea of Reincarnation. '
The view most famously found in the writings of Ajahn Buddhadasa but which is held by many Theravadin teachers past and present, is ENTIRELY consistent with the Suttas.
Obviously a forum like this is not the place to explore the issue due to time constraints ( ironically ) But anyone interested in a much more coherent reading of the Suttas than a simple fundamentalist literalism would be strongly urged to explore his oeuvre.
Ajahn Buddhadasa'a ' Paticcasamuppada a Practical Guide ' is available online as an Ebook.
It is particularly valuable for its exploration of the way that the misunderstanding of Dharma which is now known as the Three Birth Model came into being .
Unfortunately it is precisely the Three Birth Model which has been assumed to be the most authentic, whether accepted or rejected, by many western Buddhists.
The Asian understanding has a far wider spectrum and is much more nuanced.
The way you conflate "fundamentalist" with "literalism" is very revealing of your agenda here.
Personally I find Buddhadasa's purely psychological approach to DO unconvincing, contrived and muddled. It completely redefines a lot of the nidanas and uses them in a way for which they were never originally intended - it's like trying to bang square pegs into round holes! Actually it reminds me of the way the new-age types talk about "energy".
Where, exactly? Which sutta?
If you think that a single sutta reference can prove or disprove Ajahn Buddhadasa, and if you see it as having paralles with ' new age thought ' then I would suggest that you are not sufficiently familiar with that approach to Dharma.
For a start to describe that approach as 'psychological ' reveals a lack of understanding of what he is saying. He is rejecting ANY ontological understanding of the Buddhadharma, including the psychological.
Furthermore Buddhadasa's teaching is not unique to him or to the Theravada.
It is found almost identically ( once differences in cultural expression are accounted for ) in the teachings of Dogen, and in Nagarjuna.
It is not possible to do justice to the discussion by an exchange of selective sound bites.
If anyone is motivated to explore what Buddhadasa (Or Dogen ) is saying there is a plethora of
material online.
In particular many of the works of Ajahn Buddhadasa are available as free EBooks.
I recommend a perusal of them , rather than investing time in an online knockabout.
Actually I am very familiar with that approach, and my comments stand ( I was involved in the Thai Forest tradition for many years ).
I agree it's worth exploring in more detail, though I'd say it's best done in conjunction with sutta study, ie the source material.