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.
On the Topic Of Reincarnation
Reincarnation may be confusing or doubtful to western practicioners of the dharma. I hope that this explanation might help:
You yourself are a collection of phenomena surrounded by a border. That is, in order for you to exist, phenomena had to be divided from the universe, and encased in a border. For you to be born, there had to be a body to contain you. Without a body, all that you are remains, but it is no longer divided from the universe.
When you die, you lose your body, and the phenomena that is "you", returns to the universe undivided from it.
Reincarnation is the cycle of division; it is the cycle of phenomena coming into life, then returning to the world. This cycle is endless, and doesn't have to be limited to humans.
Keep in mind however, that the same divisions do not happen over and over again. Cherish the life you have now, because although what is "you" will be reborn, it certainly won't be "you" in the traditional sense of the word.
You yourself are a collection of phenomena surrounded by a border. That is, in order for you to exist, phenomena had to be divided from the universe, and encased in a border. For you to be born, there had to be a body to contain you. Without a body, all that you are remains, but it is no longer divided from the universe.
When you die, you lose your body, and the phenomena that is "you", returns to the universe undivided from it.
Reincarnation is the cycle of division; it is the cycle of phenomena coming into life, then returning to the world. This cycle is endless, and doesn't have to be limited to humans.
Keep in mind however, that the same divisions do not happen over and over again. Cherish the life you have now, because although what is "you" will be reborn, it certainly won't be "you" in the traditional sense of the word.
0
Comments
I like the visual example given in the movie "Little Buddha".
Trying to explain this to a westerner with little understanding, "Lama Norbu" fills a tea cup with tea and then proceeds to smash it. He observes that the tea cup is certainly not a tea cup any longer, but the tea that was inside is definitely still tea, weather it be on the ground, the table or soaked up into the cloth.
A good analogy, I think. Maybe oversimplified though, and still open to many questions.
This one could be interesting...
There Westerners & Easterners will similar dispositions on both sides of the fence.
You're implying that it is your body to lose.
What he means by practitioners is just western buddhists in general.
I have never given much thought about what happens between births, but I guess the stream of consciousness goes on, the cittasantana, instead of joining the undivided universe.
I HAVE AN IDEA: When thread starters want to start a thread on LITERAL rebirth, just put in the original topic (this concerns to literal rebirth); When they want to start one on METAPHORIC rebirth, they can say so; when they want to mix it up, they can say so. This might avoid opening the everlasting can of worms that is rebirth. That way each of the groups can have separate discussions, its much better then having the same pointless argument everyday.
It's meant to be useful and helpful, that is all.
Speaking of which, the way I actually see Rebirth is through the rigors of science. NamelessRiver, your comment about the cittansata being apart from the universe intrigues me. Cittansata, the stream of consciousness, the flow of phenomena and experience and flux, seems to be embodied very much in the actual universe itself. The universe, therefore, seems to me a very likely candidate for the stream of consciousness.
And what is rebirth but water poured out of a cup, into the stream, then scooped up again? In fact, I agree with both of the examples offered here. They provide exactly the same discription of rebirth, I had simply hoped that the description of the Original post might be helpful to those with a more materialistic bent.
let's not get too pedantic about this.
Whilst 'you' are using it, it's 'your' body....
"I agree; shallow and pedantic."
Why shouldn't the groups debate? If you're bored with it (as I am at the moment), just don't participate.
I want to see the debate, because I believe my side's right, so I'm always happy to see more light shed on the issue.
its good to debate the function and rationale of rebirth. it helps people come to terms with and understand the teaching rather than having a weird idea of what it is.
also, reincarnation and rebirth are different. I dont think the Buddha taught literal reincarnation but he did teach literal rebirth.
Would you mind expounding upon the distinction between reincarnation and rebirth? Thanks in advance.
rebirth allows for more a more subtle set of ideas. rebirth does not imply an unchanging entity or "soul" that transmigrates, it allows for the full inclusion of causes and conditions that produce the contaminated aggregates of bodily form. This allows us to take into account karma and the 12 links of dependent origination and at the same time doesnt force us into the logical traps of eternalism or nihilism.
Reincarnation is generally used to refer to an eternal soul that transmitigates from one life to the next.
In Buddhism, there is no eternal soul, and nothing is permanent. We are being reborn in every moment. Some people feel this does not end with physical death.
But people often use the two terms interchangeably here... context is important. I don't find it confusing when someone here says "reincarnation" at all...
My view is the Buddha transformed the common reincarnation belief into one about morality.
If we read the original scriptures, we will never read the Buddha teach reincarnation separately from morality.
This is distinct from say the Bhagavad Gita, which separates reincarnation from morality and provides a meta-physical explanation.
For Buddha himself, my view is reincarnation was a moral teaching.
Kind regards
Hey, wait a minute. I didn't say what you just quoted.
Anyway, Dhamma, I agree with you. I was just explaining the difference within the context of this Thread.
I believe literal rebirth was a moral teaching. I believe "rebirth" has the most relevence to the teachings of anatta/D.O., that is, rebirth of the ego, the false "I."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#avyakata
I wasn't able to find any language referring to a chick, but there were some similarly themed arguments, such as in the khema sutta.
That's the best I could find for now. I might search a little more later
This is a good point. That there may be an energy field of some sort, (propensities, if you will) that transmigrates, without the actual need for the soul to explain it, or even to hold this progression together.
This would be movement, more like the energy of a wave in the ocean. Does each wave represent reincarnation of the ocean?
That would certainly bring up the whole question of progress, as in, "Who is progressing?" Wouldn’t it?
S9
I think that is at least a good metaphor, Subjectivity9!
This debate is great for my understanding right now. Thanks, guys. My understanding of buddhist rebirth is that there is a huge bucket in which consciousness lies and when my body is formed I get a portion of what's in the bucket. When I die, if I have not attained Nirvana, my consciousness goes back into the bucket, although it has been altered by the causes/effects of the choices in my life. When a new body is formed, it gets a portion of the consciousness in the bucket, which may have parts of what I contributed back into consciousness when I returned to the cycle.
1 - Does anyone even understand what I'm saying here? My vocabulary on buddhist topics is not very good, so I'm doing my best with what I've got.
2 - Is this a correct understanding of the process of rebirth in a general sense (meaning not attached to one particular lineage or another)?
3 - If I attain Nirvana in this lifetime, and my consciousness is liberated from the cycle of rebirth, what happens to my consciousness? Is it a physical object? If not, how do we know what happens to it? Does my physical body return to be used by a new birth (not literally, but pieces of it... the atoms and whatnot)? I'm asking these questions, because I always thought of rebirth as a physical process akin to my body decomposing and then reforming in new ways as new life. But liberation cannot be explained in this way, because the physical world cannot disappear.
This is bringing up lots of questions for me. Awesome! I love it when I no longer "know" the answers. I'm sure I sound really naive to some of you with a much deeper understanding, but to me these sound like really good questions!
Regards.
It is my understanding that Nirvana, itself, remains untouched by our actions, and thoughts that take place within our minds.
If this were not true; than Nirvana would just be one more changeable thing amoung others, no better, no worse, and certainly similar to everything else in our minds. So, what we are doing here between birth and death is not contributing one particle towards an all-new and better Nirvana.
Now, if this is the case, and Nirvana remains unchanged, why are we suffering all this inconvenience, or even suffering as we do so, in a pursuit of improving something that cannot be improved by our efforts?
: ^ )
Nirvana is as it always has been, and always will be. We are suffering through our own confusions, our own ignorance.
Isn’t it about time that we looked directly at our own self, without embellishing everything that we see with a story about lessons and progress, and simply solve this riddle of suffering once and for all?
Many of these stories about improvement, are nothing more than a justification for pain and suffering. Wouldn’t it be better by far, if instead of dreaming up more justifications, if we simply went ahead and did what the Buddha told us to do; pulled out this arrow of our confusion, (which is wounding us)?
Just my 2 cents/and worth every penny of it, ; ^ )
S9
In one sense, one could say that samsara is the antithesis of nirvana. Pragmatically speaking, samsara, literally "wandering on," is the potential for the arising of human [mental] suffering, while nirvana, literally, "extinguishing," is the cessation of that potential. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it, "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process." Nirvana is "realized only when the mind stops defining itself in terms of place ... it's realized through unestablished consciousness."
But as not1not2 so aptly put it, "and then there's the idea that only actual difference between Nirvana & Samsara is that the former is simply the proper ascertation of the latter." See this for more information.
Many outsiders think of Nirvana as a place, like Heaven, that can be reached by years of pursuit. Others think of it as a state you can achieve by accumulating knowledge and wisdom. We know, of course, it is none of these things. Claude Debussy said, "Music is the space between the notes." Nirvana is the space between our perceptions. It is right here, right now, everywhere. It can't be seen by accumulating things; only by abandoning them.
Somebody on another topic suggested that Nirvana can be realized here and now, even without meditation or practice. While this is perfectly true, the reality is that most people have a lot of "stuff" to get rid of, first. This is why Buddha presented us with the Eightfold Path. It may not be the only way, and it is not guaranteed, but it is as close to the perfect method as you'll find.
I disagree that Nirvana is open to interpretation. Certainly the concept can be explained in a variety of ways, but the actual thing, itself, just is what it is. Also, I do not see Samsara as the opposite of Nirvana, in the same way a painting is not the opposite of a blank canvas. Samsara manifests like painting upon the canvass of Nirvana. Nirvana is always there...just look under the paint.
Palzang
When I, personally (as I cannot speak for others) think about the term “literal reincarnation,” I see people thinking that their ego self skips out of the physical body when it dies, and goes on to takes up residence in something similar to what the Christians call the soul (sort of a reservoir for all their lives), only to have the very same ego self once again take up residence in another body, and continue once again accumulate stories and lessons.
This would mean that the soul, itself, was a composite thing made up out of all these many lives, or what is often referred to as ‘becoming.’ Anything that is becoming, if you think about it, is in fact a mental object, just one more mental object.
Either this soul is also temporary like these many lives, or it is a constant thing beyond the temporary. But this would mean that Nirvana was full of these many separate souls because they are not temporary, and I have never heard that mentioned by the Wise Ones.
Now Buddhism isn’t about sorting out the good mental objects from the bad mental objects, and only keeping the good mental objects, is it?
So what I am thinking here is, that we must give up our attachment to the idea of reincarnation, or we will become attached to that idea or be bound to the concept of reincarnation, an obstacle to clarity, until we do.
Does that make sense? I welcome you comments.
By the way, what I have said (above) in no way means that I do not believe there is something beyond this one life of mine, which is manifesting today. If this is not clear to you through my present words, I will gladly rephrase my possession on this subject to bridge any misunderstanding that I may have caused. : ^ )
Respectfully,
S9
I think you are right about Nirvana not defining its self as place. Some have called this, “Abiding in the non-abiding.”
But, I think I could add to this, Nirvana is not defining our self as any mind object, which of course includes not defining ones self as place as you have said.
Another big thing we must stop defining our selves as, is time. These are equal in importance, place and time, and are even often linked together as time and space, (AKA space easily morphing into place from space like yin/yang or opposites).
When we define our selves, we become far too cumbersome to be allowed into Nirvana, or better said, “To Be Nirvana.” Nirvana is naked of ALL definition.
But, your original point was excellent, and right on target.
Respectfully,
S9
I'm not really trying to "convert" anybody here to believing in rebirth, just saying that it is what the Buddha taught. He also told us to work out our own salvation. But I don't see those two as being at all contradictory. The way we work out our salvation is by applying what he taught to our lives. So the teachings on rebirth and karma and all that really go hand in hand with working out our own salvation.
Hope that answers you as well, S9 (gee, I love all these acronyms! Very DC, you know...)
Palzang
Like, the "subtle mind" or our "stream of consciousness," per chance? A stream of "pure consciousness" on which our Kamma is imprinted?
Palzang
Edit-(I have heard it described, mostly in Tibetan books, in such a way. I was asking if this was you were refering to. Yes, I see flaws in these terms, but sometimes words don't properly convey these things, as 5B suggested, and I am hoping to learn where my understanding of it might be wrong. For one last time: I am agnostic on this subject, which means I am open to your beliefs and wanting to learn. If you are telling me that it is beyond understanding on either an intellectual or experiential level, then I guess that settles it. I apologize for upsetting you.)
Hence lies my pondering. My body will not disappear after my death, but will decompose and become different parts of many other bodies. Also, my children were made from body, adding more future possibilities for my physical self. But it's more than just the molecules that remain. The way I talked to Johnny yesterday may inadvertently affect major choices he makes. The poetry I write today, may be found in 1,000 years and change many people's lives. The kindness I raise my children with will (hopefully) affect both them and all that they touch. I see that some of these causes/effects carry intention and that others do not. I see that my actions affect this world long after my physical death. Soooooo... if I were to attain Nirvana in this lifetime, it's not as if any of those reactions would disappear. What changes besides my state of mind?
Nirvana literally means extinction, but things are never quite so easy as all that, are they? Next we must figure out, extinction of what?
And:
You must admit, as well, that saying extinction of Samsara only begs the question. “What exactly is Samsara that it needs to be extinguished?”
So, we have Samsara equaling having, (having what exactly?), and Nirvana equaling not having (not having exactly what)? In a way, it is difficult to get rid of something if you don’t really know what exactly you are getting rid of, in vivid detail.
Very often, it is minor details that can make all of the difference between success and treading water, don’t you think? So let’ put our heads together on describing this one accurately. Incidentally, I feel you have a keen grasp in this area, and I am very curious how you will put it for the good of us all.
I like what Claude Debussy said about space between the notes, and it is very apt in describing some of our first glimpses of the silent pauses that occur naturally between the noises of our minds.
However, I would like to point out that this silence is very similar to the “unchanging” that also pulses between our mind’s activity or doing.
Let me add a caveat to this idea of abandoning things. : ^ ) (I can be such a pain in the neck at times, can't I?)
Many people, at least at first, think that the mind must become empty in order to possess Nirvana. This may be helpful in the beginning, no doubt. But, there comes a time when, you see that all we need to be empty of is, wrongful identification with these mind objects.
When you see this clearly, that you are not the mind or her objects,, and that your job isn’t to make the mind into something else, you also begin to recognize who you actually are as "not mind."
I think that Nirvana is the closest description of this knowing of "Not Mind," which the mind can understand. The rest of this Knowing (with a capital K in order to set it apart from the average knowing which mind takes care of) is more intrinsic and is Known by Being it.
Samsara is superimposed on top of Nirvana, like the clouds are superimposed upon the Sky. (Sky being Nirvana.) So the clouds are not wrong, they are just clouds. But, if you say that the clouds are the sky, there is confusion.
Also, the clouds are not equal to the Sky, as Samsara is not equal to Nirvana. This is because the clouds are dependent upon the Sky and borrow from the Sky to even exist. But, the Sky does not depend upon the clouds, and even exists quite nicely without any help from the clouds.
S9
What we are running into here, if I am not mistaken, is two different ways of being on the Buddhist paths. Mine is one of the mind (Jnana) and just jammed full of details, on top of details.
The fact that you say you don’t know, when you don’t know, is commendable, and it shows good character on your part. Thank you for your honesty.
Your path on the other hand is one of surrender, (Bhakta) and I bet you could teach me a thing or two about surrender. Please do! ; ^ )
I believe both of these paths work quite for well for certain types of individuals, and I hope to learn from you within the areas of which you are most versed, in the future.
Thank you for your kind reply,
S9
This is my way of seeing it.
All of nature is within the mind like a dream. That includes you, or the physical self that you call you, along with your ego self.
Nature is obviously one thing, interdependent, which includes all things manifest. Actually nothing in nature is ever destroyed, but merely rearranges itself. Parts of your nature are shared with your children, and millions of bacteria depend upon you for its life, etc.
But this is the thing. Are you nature and all of her rearranging parts, (like a kaleidoscope) or are you something else altogether?
The influence your mental manifestation will have in this world; will certainly echo through nature and your children for a good while to come, no doubt. But, are these influences, your thoughts even you? Who are you, exactly?
I have seen people die, and been shocked dumb by the fact that life went on unchanged the very next day, not even a blip. (That is except for those who loved us.)
Within a very short time, everyone, who ever knew us or even heard of us, will also die. Then for most of us anyway, there won’t even be an echo to say that we were ever here. This can be very disturbing to many people.
But, and this is the thing, this whole natural world is a thought. We on the other hand are intrinsically different than just thoughts. Even in early meditation, we are able to step right out of our thoughts, and watch these thoughts come and go. (Thoughts be born and die) Find out "Who you are", and you will find peace. Nirvana is peace.
It’s a great quest, don't you think?
S9
What is the fettish human beings have to adulterate & convolute what was clearly taught by the Buddha?
The Buddha did not advise the state of infinite or boundless consciousness, namely, the sixth jhana, is Nibbana.
Even when the Buddha advised Nirvana was unestablished consciousness, this is due to the end of craving & the mind not establishing itself or becoming fixed upon sense objects.
This is different from what Thanissaro appears to be asserting in a consciousness somehow independent from the other aggregates, what he calls, "a mind unbound".
As the Buddha states here, consciousness becomes steady & content. It does not float off into outer space or elsewhere as the Bhikkhu Thanissaro appears to be implying.
The word vinnana means 'direct knowing'. Vi = direct and nana = knowing. I think cognition is a suitable term.
That which is imprinted by karma is the citta or sankhara khanda.
Consciousness or sense awareness, whilst tainted or obscured, is not imprinted.
Our emotional or defiled tendencies are products of the citta or sankhara khanda.
Consciousness is merely the sense awareness that functions via the sense organs. Consciousness itself does not produce greed, hatred & ignorance.
When the mind is enlightened, it is the citta or sankhara khanda that is enlightened (rather than consciousness).
The first words of the Buddha were: "My mind (citta) has entered into that state upon which nothing can stir it up again. It has come to cravings end, namely, the unsurpassed peace of Nibbana".
When the citta stops spinning in greed, hatred & delusion, a secondary benefit is consciousness becomes very clear.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Nice troll, but I never said "transmigration" or "reincarnation." I said "wandering on," which is a perfectly valid translation of samara.
What kind of wandering on are you referring?
No, implying that I said something I didn't is.
With metta
I'm not interested in getting into yet another debate about rebirth with you if that's what you're implying here.
This post brought up an interesting question for me. While the terms citta, mano and vinnana are often used in different contexts in the suttas, it's often asserted (especially in Theravada commentarial literature) that they can be used interchangeably, mainly based upon this passage in SN 12.61:
I assume the answer is yes, but do you think it's a mistake to assume, as the ancient commentators did, that these three terms are synonymous?
That's a much more rational way of thinking. And it leaves oneself more accessibe to the fact that bare awareness is not a physical function.
Yes. Buddhism, too, rejects the soul and the notion that rebirth is like a little ego taking residence in a new body. For example a dog mind floating around taking and controlling a dog body. Such ideas are a gross grasping to a "self", and so it is only fitting that materialistic, neurotic, nihilistic westerners who strongly grasp to a self have such conceptions of rebirth.
Rebirth is more like, you have active misperception (ignorance). This ignorance arms your karma. Your karma in combination with the previous moment of awareness produce a thought or a notion of objects in the way that dogs perceive objects. That's what makes _you_ a dog. If it's just that, then you could easily be a dog 2 minutes from now. You'll die, and a new karma in combination with the previous moment of your awareness will spin the cycle of suffering.