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.
Re-birth as a metaphor?
I was talking to my friend recently who isn't Buddhist, yet is trying to understand the thoughts and ideals, and the topic of re-birth came up. Now, I'm not a horribly experienced Buddhist seeing as how I just started practicing about two years ago, but I explained what I knew to the best of my knowledge, and left the rest open to speculation and debate, as good things often come from that 
At one point she brought up the question of whether I thought that re-birth could perhaps be a metaphor and I asked her to expound upon the theory. She explained that she thought that perhaps re-birth referred to a re-birth of your mind rather than your karma. Your mind, she quipped, is constantly changing perspectives based on what you experience in your life. You go to work and your perspectives change, someone dies and your perspectives change, even small events such as reading a book change you perspectives. Was re-birth perhaps a metaphor to further understand why you never truly view the world the same from one second to the next?
At one point she brought up the question of whether I thought that re-birth could perhaps be a metaphor and I asked her to expound upon the theory. She explained that she thought that perhaps re-birth referred to a re-birth of your mind rather than your karma. Your mind, she quipped, is constantly changing perspectives based on what you experience in your life. You go to work and your perspectives change, someone dies and your perspectives change, even small events such as reading a book change you perspectives. Was re-birth perhaps a metaphor to further understand why you never truly view the world the same from one second to the next? 0
Comments
And
maybe not.
It's possible, because we're never the same from one day to the next, mentally OR physically......
Your friend is simply describing anicca as applied to sankhara khandha (one of the five khandhas or aggregates). This is a good thing to recognize... all things are constantly born and die (not reborn; the word "rebirth" is not used in the Pali suttas) as all things are conditioned, and that includes the 5 Aggregates which we often mistake as fixed, permanent things which we cling to as "self." If sankhara is focused on then it seems like it is specifically being seen as the "self."
The non-literal interpretations refer to the overall self-view we form in our minds through clinging to things (whether it be a car, our looks, our thoughts, etc.) which are impermanent. Please consider reading this essay by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu which explains this interpretation of the Buddha's teachings: Anatta & Rebirth (some people still say "rebirth" for simplicity's sake but in fact it's better understood as simply birth and death) & Patticasamupada - Practical Dependent Origination
Buddha was not a wandering minstrel, weaving fanciful stories for their entertainment value.
The essence of the teaching is how to liberate oneself from samsarra.
To reject rebirth is to reject the core teachings.
Ok.
No one said he was.
The essence of the teachings is freedom from dukkha.
Oh, well, if you say so, who are we to argue. :buck:
Indeed, rebirth is not a metaphor. However, whether it is physical or mental is subject to interpretation.
The Dhamma states:
Buddha was precise. He mentions several times that a person will be reborn 'after the breakup of the body' after death. His words were clear. Many have since tried to muddy them or pretend they meant a rebirth of the mind .
Buddha taught it.
Next people will try to excuse it away by saying that Buddha was addressing superstitious groups of one sort or another, so he taught post-mortem rebirth as a starting point. No need, they already knew, so this too is invalid. Those who consider the above to be valid often assert also that the interpretation that he was teaching post-mortem rebirth is negated by other teachings where Budddha used different vocabulary about changes in our state of being. This of course opens that claim to the flip-side of their own argument, i.e. Buddha actually believed in post-mortem rebirth but avoided the question and used different terminology at times when it was suited to addressing particular groups.
Buddha taught post-mortem rebirth and meant it, as far as the scriptures show us.
Or in the Anapanasati Sutta, the Buddha states the breathing in & out is a body amongst bodies. Step 3 is experiencing 'all bodies' (rather than 'the whole body' as is commonly mistranslated.
For example, the body of a 'lover' or 'fighter' are different phenomena dependent on the state of mind. When a lover loses the beloved, that is the break up of the body of the lover. When a fighter loses the fight, that is the break up of the body of the fighter. From this break up of the body, comes sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair and the whole mass of suffering.
Are you saying the body is reborn, like Christians believe at the end of the age, bodies will literally rise from the graves into heaven?
You know what I am saying, old friend.
'The break-up of the body, AFTER DEATH'.
http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/samyutta-nikaya/sn42-6.htm
<center> Samyutta Nikaya XLII.6
</center> <center> Paccha-bhumika Sutta
</center>
Paragraph 2.
And yet "birth" is described in non-literal terms by the Buddha himself in suttas such as MN 38.
I agree, many have tried to muddle it by claiming that "mind" or "consciousness" is "reborn" in future lives and that this is all the Buddha spoke of.
Incidentally, what do you think is literally reborn after we die?
In any event, I do not feel it's refering to rebirth of the mind specifically because all things are impermanent in such a way and constantly being "reborn." This is just anicca. "Mind" is just one of the aggregates and not fit to be clung to as "self" any more than the others. Dependent Origination is birth/death of self-identification to that which we cling to, which includes all of the aggregates.
Everything is in a state of constant change and is never the same moment to moment.
I have stated what Buddha said, which was in accord at times with post-mortem rebirth of that being. So I may assume he was in accord with vedic ideaology, but I may be wrong.
Now, if you want me to define what that being/mind/soul may be, I have no idea, except that in the text I quoted, Buddha talks of the post-mortem rebirth of a 'man'.
If you think others have muddied the waters with respect to the rebirth of a 'mind' you must find it all the more muddied by Buddha in talking of the rebirth of a 'man'.
As for pretending that 'death' means someting other than 'death' and 'break-up of the body' means something other that 'break-up of the body' I think this is where Dhamma Dhatu and others begin to weaken their case significantly. One the one hand they claim the Buddha was clear and unvarnished, in the next they seek to obfuscate and twist plain words.
Please explain how the Buddha, given a rich language and a fine education, speaks one thing and means another - this would surely be deception. I seem to find a great deal of selectivity in these discussions - when the Buddha speaks plainly in your favour you say that the Buddha speaks plainly, then if the Buddha speaks words with which you disagree, of course he meant something else!
Buddhist practice can be pursued regardless of one's beliefs. In fact, it undermines belief.
This is very apposite. Thank you.
There are two 'relevant' motivations with respect to practice:
One believes there is no post-mortem rebirth and so must make urgent progress within this life.
OR
One believes there is the possiblity of a post-mortem rebirth which is the result of karma, and one wishes to avoid an unfortunate rebirth, and so must make urgent progress in this life.
In other words, whatever the belief with respect to rebirth, we should get on with practice as if the house is on fire!
There's no need to pretend. Dhamma backed up his statement. The Buddha uses the word "birth" in non-literal ways throughout the suttas when speaking of D.O. and so it would follow that death in terms of D.O. is not literal, either. Certainly, it is not physical death which leads to suffering?
Yes, that's the point people here are making. So what are you arguing about? You just admitted that literal rebirth is not relevent/necessary to the Buddha's core teachings. What are the core teachings, then, to your mind, if not D.O. taking place moment-to-moment, the birth of self-view which is clinging to impermanent things and leads to each instance of dukkha within our lives?
Thank you. No response necessary.
Motives to practice can have nothing to do with personal beliefs on the matter of life-to-life rebirth, though. I have held strong views on the matter in the past, but they had no bearing on my extremely strong motivation to practice. That came from a desire to end suffering, which life was full of. (It's still full of suffering, but at least the suffering is subtler, now.
I am not arguing about anything, just placing verbatim teachings of the Buddha in front of you. Strange that you omit to say that I too backed up my assertion with a relevant quote from Buddha.
I have not asserted that Buddha did not say or mean something else at other times (see my earlier post) but I do assert that he used very plain language about post-mortem rebirth which is not open to other interpretations.
Nail hit firmly on the head, old friend.
The desire to end suffering, whether one's own or that of others, is far more important as a motivation to practice.
I defy anyone to disagree with that 4NT motivation. I have also pointed out that whether or not one disagrees with the idea that Buddha taught post-mortem rebirth is irrelevant to practice.
All discussions of this type end up as conjecture, which as we know is also pointless and bordering on 'idle gossip'. Guess that means me too!
one must eat to satisfy his hunger and therefore hunger is suffering which you can't be free from.
you cant be free from death, hunger, aging, sleeping, ect. as long as you live life
but as long as there is only one life to live then there are teachings on how to live a meaingful life.
If there is no literal rebirth then there is no such teachings as the cessation of sufferings for these sufferrings will end in death anyways.
if there is only one life to live then I cannot see the point to the teaching of the cessation of sufferring, but I can see the point to learn how tyo live a more meaningfull life.
And why? Because all these sufferrings will end in death anyways.
Hi Herethere,
Better stick to literal rebirth as you will be less confused.
There are two methods of instruction in Buddha's teachings, namely, the ultimate teaching and the mundane teaching. The former being concerned with abstract knowledge while the latter with ordinary or conventional knowledge appealing to perception by which objects are known by their names. When we discuss about impermanence, suffering, truth, establishment of mindfulness, and sense-spheres, we are concerned with ultimate subjects. When we talk about men, women, devas, brahmins, etc., we are concerned with everyday subjects that one mentions by name.
There are people who can see the light of the dhamma by mundane means of instruction as well as those who get enlightened by ultimate means.All mundane teaching is in conventional language. When we say that one is an individual, a being, a woman, or a man, we are being realistic, for all mankind has accepted the descriptions given. Truth ordained by general consensus of opinion is samutisacca. In other words it is truth accepted by conventional language of mankind, and so it is no falsehood.
[Problem is rebirth is not universally accepted even though you can plainly read about in the suttas and tends to give rise to clinging to views and fruitless arguments]
When we say the "aggregates" have only their kamma as their possession, the meaning of the statement may be ambiguous. But when we say that individuals commit good or evil deeds which result in good or evil kammas, and that therefore, these kammas are their own possession, the individual kamma can be understood. When kamma is to be expounded Buddha used names in current speech.
Mahasi Sayadaw
are you telling me this because you beleive in literal rebirth or do you just want me to be less confusing?
"Nonliteral rebirth" is a metaphor.
"Both" is a metaphor.
"Neither" is a metaphor.
I just wrote this for another thread, but it applies here too:
The Buddha defined kamma as intentional actions of body, speech and mind (AN 6.63), and he taught that intentional actions have the potential to produce certain results, which, in turn, have the potential to produce pleasant, painful or neutral feelings (AN 4.235). Intentional actions rooted in greed, hatred or delusion produce painful feelings, while intentional actions rooted in non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion produce the opposite. By bringing kamma to an end, however, the mind becomes free and undisturbed. And this teaching applies to both the literal and metaphorical interpretations of rebirth.
If you're interested, you can find some of my longer posts on rebirth here and here.
Yes and yes.
Thus "metaphor" is, itself, a metaphor - samsara is recursive.
Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.
Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.
Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.
One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…
R: There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.
S9: I think what most people find regrettable about this concept (above) of rebirth, is that it makes it seems like all of our suffering, and all of our hard lessons won, come to no purpose. Perhaps the dreadfulness of no purpose is what many persons find hard to live with.
When this world is seen to be rather more like a dream, and engaged in as play, it is a little more agreeable that no purpose is required. We can understand this and even find it comfortably familiar, as we do this nightly.
Dreams often bleed into dreams, and continue in this fashion. In doing so on this level of understanding, there is actually no one who suffers. It is simply a picture show within imagination.
Warm Regards,
S9
I'm silly; I happen to believe that I can be a Buddhist, practice like my house is on fire, and yet not worry so much about making up my mind about rebirth.
The thing that attracted me to Buddhism in the first place was the idea that insight will be revealed to "me" by my practice, and that "The Gospel According to the Buddha" is really just a bunch of words.
R: I'm silly; I happen to believe that I can be a Buddhist, practice like my house is on fire, and yet not worry so much about making up my mind about rebirth.
S9: I agree with you that there is no need to make up one's mind immediately on the whole issue of rebirth, but to remain receptive, especially when we have to admit that all of the information in this area isn’t in and available to us.
I don’t think all of the concern in this area is merely scholastic curiosity. I believe people have many personal issues about this and find some comfort in the idea of continuance. After all, death, like the 'Sword of Damocles’ hangs over many of our heads, and fills us with "Fear and Trembling", even while we unsuccessfully try to keep this spectra on the back burner, even more so as we age. : ^ (
Also, never underestimate the power of procrastination, even when we feel that something important needs doing. When we can stretch the responsibility of Realization out over a number of lives, we don’t feel quite so pushed around. “Hey, what’s the hurry?”
And:
This just names a few of these bandaid solutions that imagination can dream up. I think the human race is perfectly ingenious when it comes to the manufacture of defenses and excuses. ; ^ )
R: The thing that attracted me to Buddhism in the first place was the idea that insight will be revealed to "me" by my practice, and that "The Gospel According to the Buddha" is really just a bunch of words.
S9: Well, a bunch of pretty wise words, in most part, you must admit.
This is how I agree with you about insights.
Crazy as this may sound on first hearing, I think a single child could be dropped on an island with no other humans, and be brought up by rabbits, (smile) and if he looked closely enough at his surrounding world and himself with great perseverance, that eventually he would come on the Truth. Because if it is really Truth, it is available and it is not an invention of civilization, and any particular religious group. Like you say insight is not held captive by language (AKA words and concepts).
I know, without a doubt, that some may feel this idea a little odd, but I’m sticking to my story. (Because intelligence isn’t just the purview of the (arrogant) human mind. Watch nature and all of her children, and see how much more wise She seems to be, than we are. We can only hope that Mother (nature) will continue to teach us about balance.)
Warm Regards,
S9
With regard to the rebirth thing..I guess I'm not yet convinced that it's important for me to decide how I feel about it. Do you see it as a game-changer with regard to how I practice the dharma? I guess I see it that I will put my efforts towards Morality, Concentration, and Wisdom, as they help me to understand suffering in my life, and either way, the outcome is a good thing. If it also helps me in a future incarnation as a mineral deposit that is harvested to become part of an automotive waterpump, then great!
Sorry, I guess I'm a bit of a cheeky joker today. I have respect for those that believe in rebirth, but I haven't seen the definitive evidence to point me in that direction. Texts are wonderful as a guide...but if my solution to my spiritual life was just to dogmatically accept literal interpretations, I would probably have just become a fundamentalist Christian (much more prevalent here in the Southeastern U.S. than Buddhists) and been done with it!
I didn’t get the impression that you were “belittling the Buddha’s amazing teachings,” by any stretch of the imagination. It was Buddha himself that taught us to investigate personally and to trust our own insights, as the final word.
I feel that he meant his words to be more like a map, (and less like a bunch of iron clad rules) in order to help us realize both where we should be looking, and to help us identify what we were actually seeing, when we finally did see for ourselves.
I think I am more like you in this respect. I want to see the worth of Buddha’s teaching right here and now, and I want to feel myself growing or expanding in wisdom within my present life. I don’t want to accumulate merit for some later date, or to look forward to a good rebirth down the road sometime.
R: Do you see it as a game-changer with regard to how I practice the dharma?
S9: Absolutely not. But, I am sure there are many who will disagree on this point.
I don’t believe there is any one idea that can get in your way, and obstruct you, unless you hold onto it for dear life and refuse any further proof to the contrary. You are not building a road out of rocklike truths made of words and phrases, but rather looking more directly into your self in order to see what actually is. This is a more living/breathing truth, than the death mask of Dogmas that some insist upon.
Seeing the suffering in your own life is certainly where to begin, and if you trust it wholeheartedly, suffering will take you all the way to the end of this path, as it points directly at where change is necessary and where something just isn’t right. If you clean up all of the suffering in your life, and then look around at where you have ended up, I believe you will be surprised when you arrive. Most of us only know that we have to go. Very few of us have any idea where we are going.
R: Sorry, I guess I'm a bit of a cheeky joker today.
S9: No, no, maintain your sense of humor. It is a great gift. Life isn’t easy for any of us, and I think humor is a good companion along the way. Sometimes, when all else fails, the only thing left us is to laugh. : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
It maybe true that the DO probably doesn't talk about rebirth, the concept of rebirth is just a moral teaching and that you don't have to believe in rebirth to practice the Dhamma but that doesn't mean the Buddha was going around telling fairly tales to his disciples when he talked about rebirth at the break of the body.
There are many suttas where the Buddha clearly talks about rebirth. If someone can give me a good enough explanation to say he was not talking about rebirth there I will accept it as I personally don't have any solid evidence to say it exists or not. I will get you the names of the suttas if you want
That is a fantastic article you found there Fede.
The Last 10 Seconds of Eternity
Not to seem argumentative, but I was of the impression that the Buddha wrote no suttas. Rather, his followers interpreted what he had said and created an oral tradition, which was then written down many years (centuries?) later.
As I have said, I have all the respect in the world for the written teachings...but I am simply not the type to make an idea like rebirth my gospel unless there is evidence beyond someone's written word, which can be mistranslated, misinterpreted, or made serve someone else's agenda.
I may yet become a believer in rebirth; who knows, perhaps someone here will present something convincing!
this is true. The Pali Canon wasnt written down until centuries after Buddha passed into Parinirvana. We have to be historically realistic when we consider scriptural references and reverences.
I believe that what many of us are saying, isn’t that there is no good in the sutras, but that nothing should be swallowed whole.
Nothing and no one is going to come and save you. You will have to do this for yourself, be your own personal savior.
Ultimate Truth is ineffable and so cannot be said exactly in words, anyway.
Warm Regards,
S9
I dont think they arent trustworthy.
I think they are supports and should be treated as such.
And that it is all of our best interest to be historically realistic.
I found it suprising after entering the study of Buddhist ideas relatively recently that reincarnation would be something Buddhists could believe. This is largely because i entered from a ' western scientific' door eg Jon Kabat Zinn and followed on with Zen writings by thich Nhat hahn who also seemed keen to take into account scientific findings in his thinking. I think the Dalai lama also engages in annual talks with the Western scientific world so clearly respects western scientific enquiry.
So many comments on this forum suggest there are fundamental splits in the practice of the teachings of the Buddha: eg some seem to take all the is written of the Buddha's teachings as the 'truth' as he was 'enlightened' and therefore could see more than most men can; others remember he was just a man and therefore fallible.
(I think the latter group also run screaming from beliefs based on 'blind faith', though most would agree Science is itself a bit of a religion. eg we are tied to the need for proof - when for Chinese medicine seems to say if its worked over so many years it must be alright eg accupuncture and we catch up later. They may look at Western medicine and say - 'why would you find worth in the 'proof' of the findings of a group of scientists paid to study a subject by a big corporation with a vested interest?' Science starts to seem less like an objective quest for truth when seen in these terms.)
Here's my present position on rebirth -I am not tied to the idea of proof as why should something that is true necessarily confirm to our ideas of proof? I am not a blind follower of faith in a dogma or teaching or prophet: i see the need to escape death as a big enough motivation for man to create an escape strategy. So i spose its "dunno but don't mind...maybe one day i'll know"
The most respect i have had so far to anyone investigating the idea of death and challenging our western linear understanding of life is TNH's work in 'No Death No fear'. To summarise- the definition of death as annihilation is impossible- it is understood nothing can be created or destroyed. All things change form. So we are attached to the status quo of our present conscious 'separate' selves and see turning into tree fertiliser fopr example as annihilation rather than change. He suggests at someone's death we wish them 'happy continuation' -but not as another sentient being necessarily. He also talks of the reincarnation of the Dala lama as being an attractive idea but states he would rather his followers looked for his continuation in his spiritual descendents, blood descendents and in the natural world as minerals etc eg the water from his body joining the clouds etc. I like that.
Phew that was a long winded post, hope it wasn't too obvious for you more experienced chaps. BF
Not to nitpick, but as a rule, I think most Buddhists find differentiation between "reincarnation", and "rebirth". My understanding of reincarnation is that it implies a permanent self-identity that assumes a new body...I've always had a difficult time with that; it implies some sort of background mechanism that picks out a new host, and safely manages a transferal. I think the Tibetan folks go in for that kind of thing...perhaps not so much other schools..?
Rebirth is a LITTLE easier for me to wrap my arms around. I'm an engineer, and Laws of Conservation make all sorts of sense to me. In fairness, I'm still figuring out how I feel about it, but the idea that my energy and substance pass into a different form(s) is a bit more palatable.
I see no birth, and no death, but only the Original Face, which is Ever-Present. Zen would only ask us to find out what this Original Face actually is.
This does not rely on faith. It only asks us to ‘Look’ long and deep, until we are completely satisfied.
Is this path a choice, which we can turn away from, or is it more like a torrid love affair that draws us ever onward?
Warm Regard,
S9
And speaking tongue-in-cheek, I hope that my Original Face is prettier than my current one.
Original Face may not be prettier, but at least it doesn't have to worry about wrinkling.
Smiles,
S9
nor to put a cause toward this noble goal