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.
Question regarding reincarnation to Buddhist Christians
Hello everyone:) I am a Christian, and have seen that the teachings of Buddhism are very valuable, and fall in line with a lot, if not all, of what Jesus taught.
I am now trying to understand the concept of reincarnation.
There is a story in the Bible about "The Rich Man and Lazarus" (in Luke 16:19-31) This is referring to the dead at a time before Jesus died, and most Christian teachers teach that before Jesus died, people went to either Sheol or Paradise when they died, then Heaven or Hell after Jesus died. Reincarnation kind of makes sense to me, but this story makes me think that there was something different about how it all worked before Jesus died. Or maybe i am not understanding it at all.
It (reincarnation and the Bible) seems like a possible paradox, but if i have learned one thing, its that "paradoxes" aren't always what they seem and that there is usually a bigger picture in which both things are right or true.
I have some thoughts on this, but things aren't really making sense to me right now. I would love to hear what other Buddhist Christians have to say about this story and how they interpret it.
Thanks in advance, and sorry in advance if i do not understand something. I am new to all of this, and i realize that teaching sight to the blind is not an easy thing, especially if the blind think they can see.
I am now trying to understand the concept of reincarnation.
There is a story in the Bible about "The Rich Man and Lazarus" (in Luke 16:19-31) This is referring to the dead at a time before Jesus died, and most Christian teachers teach that before Jesus died, people went to either Sheol or Paradise when they died, then Heaven or Hell after Jesus died. Reincarnation kind of makes sense to me, but this story makes me think that there was something different about how it all worked before Jesus died. Or maybe i am not understanding it at all.
It (reincarnation and the Bible) seems like a possible paradox, but if i have learned one thing, its that "paradoxes" aren't always what they seem and that there is usually a bigger picture in which both things are right or true.
I have some thoughts on this, but things aren't really making sense to me right now. I would love to hear what other Buddhist Christians have to say about this story and how they interpret it.
Thanks in advance, and sorry in advance if i do not understand something. I am new to all of this, and i realize that teaching sight to the blind is not an easy thing, especially if the blind think they can see.
0
Comments
Whatever the afterlife teaching, it is designed to encourage morality in people who are spirituality blind in that they cannot see good & evil for what they really are. The spiritually blind are taught via fear rather than via wisdom. The blind are not being taught 'sight' but, instead, fear.
The Bible states 'wisdom is fear of the Lord'. Buddhism also has its fair share of teachings about hell.
The Buddha said:
However many human beings cannot understand this simple instruction due to their spiritual blindness. So they are taught stories about heaven & hell.
Thank you for your reply:) It is much appreciated. Even though the answers i seek have not been revealed to me yet, im sure you have answered a question i probably would have had in the future. Or maybe it is an answer to the question i asked and i just cannot see it yet.
But here is another question i am wondering about, when the Buddha achieved Nirvana, he broke free from the cycle of suffering of death and rebirth, right? What does Buddhism teach happens to someone's conscious when they do that?
I am wondering, because if the concept of an all encompassing multi dimensional force which is God is true, and Buddha broke free from this cycle, it might make sense that he became a part of That, which from the Bible teaches is eternal perfection/freedom from pain and suffering/heaven/God.
So Buddha was born imperfect and became perfect and "one with God" so to speak. And it is taught that Jesus is God and is from God, so He is not a regular soul that is being reincarnated, its like God incarnated. So it could be considered that Buddha is Jesus, or part of Jesus, right? Does any of this make sense? Also, does Buddhism teach that others before the Buddha achieved Nirvana, or was he the first?
you may find many Christians who incorporate Buddhist pracrice into their Christian existence, but very few Buddhists - if any - who amalgamate Christianity with their Buddhism.
The issue is, that most Buddhists lay aside any credence or consideration of God.
And Reincarnation and re-birth, strictly speaking, are slightly different concepts in Buddhism.
The main tradition to consider reincarnation is primarily Tibetan Buddhism which holds true that Lamas are able to decree theior own reincarnation as a future Tulku...
Even this is not a carbon-copy identical duplicate, but the reincarnated Lama simply transmits certain qualities of Consciousness and thus re-emerges in a new form, as a Tulku.... This Tulku of course, has his own qualities, Karma and whatnot, but the essential qualities of the previous Lama are reincarnated within this Tulku.
Re-birth is for us lowly Buddhists! We have some Kamma to work through, and until we reach enlightenment, Samsara is our bolt-hole.....:D
No, not quite.
What is actually happening, is that the teachings of Jesus are very valuable, and fall in line a lot, if not all, with what the Buddha taught. remember that Buddhism precedes Christianity by a good 500 years......
Reincarnation was once an accepted concept in Christianity, but it interfered and conflicted with the View that God had the final word on retribution.... have a look at this link. It might be of interest to you. This one too, may explain it well....
Hope this helps.
There are different versions of Buddhism. But the original or oldest teachings define Nirvana as the end of greed, hatred & delusion.
They also teach the Buddha was conscious in his experience of Nibbana and that he spent the last 45 years of his life with Nirvana.
You see, in our life we have many challenges. Sometimes when it all gets too much for us we say to ourselves: "Why was I born? I wish I was never born". These challengs are the burdens of life or being born. We must work, keep the body clean & safe, endure sickness, trouble, etc.
And then there is death. If we believe in life after death, especially something very positive like going to heaven with Jesus, then our worries & fears of death may be appeased. But not everyone believes in life after death & even if they do, death can still cause fear, worry & suffering to them.
Then there is rebirth. We get & have something, it changes, we lose it and then we must look for it again or look for something else to satisfy us. This constant search in our lives, always losing things and having to chase or find something again, this is rebirth or cycling thru birth & death. Having, losing, recovering, etc.
So our thirst is never really quenched. Although we drink water, we must drink again. We do not drink the water where we will never thirst again.
So to break free from birth & death can mean to break free of the problems, stuggles, doubts, confusions, searching, losing, recovering, thirst and general sufferings associated with birth & death.
Well...this is just one interpretation.
Kind regards
@Federica
Thanks for the links. I have already looked through the first one, the reluctant messenger, and your right, i did find it very interesting. Also, i did some more digging around in the Old Testament and found what i believe to be proof that they believed in reincarnation as well. I looked at the old Hebrew text, and it seems that it was also implied that reincarnation was a choice when you get to the "land of the dead" or whatever(which of course is described as a place, as many things in the Bible are for ease of understanding i guess.) I am going to read the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying soon, i am interested in what it has to say on this subject.
And yes, the Buddha was around 500 years before Jesus. When i said what i said, i simply meant that many of their teachings were the same. Didn't mean to imply that Jesus came first
Also, something interesting to note about Buddha and Jesus... When i was looking at the four noble truths, i noticed the noble eightfold path was called "The Way." And there is a Bible verse in which Jesus also says He is "The Way" and the old Hebrew text of the word means "The right way of thinking." Which of course sounds similar to Buddha's teachings. Both are aimed at ending eternal suffering, they might be the same thing in a way. I think it is all connected somehow
Again, thanks for your words, both of you, they are greatly appreciated.
With Love,
Redsaint
My impression is Judaism was a temporal religion, that taught social moral law & taught all human beings were equal. This was its unique & advanced characteristic in its era, where most societies were based on heirachy & social caste.
That is my view.
I am a Christian who has an interest in learning more of the worldview of Buddhism and hence my visit to this forum. I know very little of Buddhism and so please excuse me if I ask any questions on Buddhism that may be too basic.
I have to honestly say that this is the first time I have heard of the term Buddhist Christians. I presume it is unique to the Buddhist worldview as this is non existent in a Christian worldview because of theological reasons. Can someone please explain what does it mean by the term. It is my understanding that Buddha did not subscribe to the concept of re-incarnation. I have posted this point on a few other forums but no Buddhist has ever responded either to affirm of reject this point. Your description of the difference between re-birth and re-incarnation seems to suggest that my understanding is correct. Can you please clarify this point.
It seems to me the difference is (1)re-birth is less determinative; and (2) in the degree of transmigration of consiousness. Can you explain the theological reasoning between re-birth and re-incarnation.
I have visited the website link that you provided. I believe it is a New Age website rather than a Christian one. The point that teaching of re-incarnation was originated to Origen is entirely false. I actully checked his discourse which has been misquoted as expressing his views on re-incarnation. If you read the whole text, he was quoting the views of Plato et al on this subject. Reincarnation is not a concept in Christianity and any such views are misguided and misinformed.
I have actually seen a poster on this forum suggesting that re-incarnation is supported in Christian scriptures because the Jews were asking whether John the Baptist was Elijah. This is misguided because the Jews believe Elijah who is considered their greatest prophet will someday return to them. This is the reason there is a cup of Elijah in their communion to remind them of this. This is Jewish interpretation and not mainstream Christian view. In any case, the Bible tells us that Elijah was taken up by God in a chariot. If Elijah is still alive then his return is not re-incarnation. There are only two persons in the Bible who are recorded to have been taken up to be with God before seeing death. The other is Enoch.
Best wishes
If I lived in Asia, where Christianity is less common and Buddhism is more common, it's possible I would have read about Christian Buddhists, i.e. people who started as Buddhists and adopted some aspect of Christian belief. You have to assume that wherever two religions meet, there will be a few people who combine the two.
I'm assuming that you read an edition of "On First Principles" based on Rufinus' Latin translation. Rufinus openly admitted altering the text, or as he put it, correcting errors. It appears that Rufinus added statements modifying Origen's vews. These statements aren't found in the Greek, and Origen seems to have openly taught the transmigration of souls.
Your point is useful as I am of Chinese descent and have lived in Asia for over 30 years and so I understand what is being said. Culture and Buddhism/Taoism is so interposed that being a Christian is somewhat like turning your back on your own culture e.g. ancestor worship. Maintaining a Buddhist/Christian profile sometimes is just to keep the peace at home. At a deeper level, this conflict will eventually have to be resolved - unfortunately.
No I have not read Rufinus' work. Origen was a somewhat controversial figure in early Church history because of his views on certain doctrinal issues like restoration of all things. He was however a brilliant theologian and anybody who understand Bible scriptures and doctrine would not advocate transmigration of souls. This doesn't make sense. One simply has to evaluate their argument against scriptures to establish the facts. This is the beauty of the Bible and having the Holy Spirit in a Christian.
In that case I'm curious about where you read Origen saying that he was only bringing up transmigration in order to discuss it. As far as I know, that's found only in Rufinus' Latin translation of "On First Principles".
And yet he does advocate transmigration, clearly and without qualification.
Transmigration was discussed in the Catechetical School in Alexandria where Origen studied and later became head of the school. There's some evidence that his predecessor as head, Clement of Alexandria, may have believed and taught transmigration. A lot of other Christians of the time believed it also.
Christianity was a lot more fluid in Origen's time than it is today. There wasn't one Christian community; there were multiple Christian communities with their own distinct beliefs. Even the bishops who are viewed today as the orthodox church fathers had differing views on things. As an example, after Origen's death the church fathers were divided on whether Origen was a brilliant defender of orthodoxy or a heretic.
In Book 1, Chapter 8 of "On First Principles", Origen talks about transmigration in a way that sounds very similar to Indian religions. The soul is reincarnated in various realms depending on how subject it is to passion. Souls most afflicted with passion are reincarnated as animals or even plants, while those most free of passion are reincarnated as beings of a higher order than human.
The early Gnostics believed in reincarnation, although, to most Gnostics, it was something to be avoided, as some saw it as being reborn, again, in Hell (which was the world, and, that also parallels what was revealed in Angel (the spin off of Buffy)).
I like learning about the similarities between different religions, even though there are differences, I think if more people looked at the similarities, there'd be less conflict in the world.
It must be understood that I have had what I call the "Omar Khayyam experience":
"Rubaiyat XXVII.
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went."
At the age of 14, I was in full revolt against my parents' worldview. It was 1957 and the War and the Bomb hung over us. Our conscript troops were dying in Cyprus (a war that seems to have been airbrushed out of our history. How many here remember enosis or EOKA?) and there was no end in sight. Without anyone to discuss it with, there was a deep malaise in me about my sexuality and the struggle for the sort of continence which was then demanded of us. No answers or comfort appeared to exist in the scientific rationalism of my family and education. In some ways, I blame J. R. R. Tolkien and Mallory for a fascination with stories with mythic 'heft': theirs were the first books I took out of the senior library to which I had just been admitted. My father's loathing of Christianity sent me headlong towards it.
After a very short time as a church-goer, my inbuilt curiosity led me to investigate different forms of worship and theology. Attending All Souls', Langham Place, 'under' the Revd John Stott (q.v.) I read and re-read the Bible, studying it in the evangelical tradition. Then, in our long Easter and Summer holidays (3 months each year), serving Mass at Saint Jacques in Dieppe and learning the long traditions of pre-Vatican II, French catholicism. At school, of course, and at the dinner table, I was back in secular, rationalist anti-clericalism.
Reflecting on those teenage years, I realise that I was looking, like all my contemporaries, forebears and descendants for The Answer. And I wanted to use my scientific and philosophe-trained mind to determine a method by which to find it - or if it exists at all. Spiritualities became my area of research, particularly through stories: myths and legends, of course, but the Scripture stories, read as stories, novels (classics, sci-fi and detective were my favourites), epic poetry (we all learned Latin and some did Greek), all that sort of thing. I was also hooked on Shakespeare. If there had been computers, I would have been a nerd, as it , I was a bookworm. In 1963, my library comprised over 500 books and I belonged to four libraries of three different modern languages. On a side note, I was not a hermit: I acted in plays, went out with girls, was captain of fencing and went on CND and Committee of 100 marches, met Bertie Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre as well as the Beatles.
My interim hypothesis was, and still remains, that there are areas of 'answer' which are common to most, if not all, these various 'stories' and, overlaying them, a blanket of interpretation, commentary and spin. I can see little difference between Harold Bloom's monumental literary critical work on Shakespeare and his Book of J, analysing the J thread in the Pentateuch. He demonstrates my general thesis that 'its' all stories' or, as the old lady said to William James (in one version of the legend) "There are turtles all the way down".
With this in mind and after reading Frazer's Golden Bough, which my father gave me for my 16th birthday, I became fascinated by the differences in the interpretations of the stories. Take Genesis as an example, I can list you at least half-a-dozen different ways to read the Creation accounts, at least one of which might be original but most, if not all, have been suggested by earlier writers. Some of these readings have gained greater credence as a way of understanding the story of, say, Gan Eden. Groups gather round a particular reading and declare it to be the definitive one but teenage and sexagenarian Simon asks : "Who says?" After all, having been brought up multi-lingual and reading French as fast, if not faster, than English, I know that we can't even agree on the stories, let alone the meaning - if there is one at all.
What I understood, too, is that all the stories and songs that interested me had something to say about what it means to be a human being and how to act in the world.
My areas of focus have been, primarily, in the Judaeo-Christian story books, primarily, but not only, the Tanakh, the New Testament, the lives of 'saints' and 'sinners', theology, practices, etc. For some decades now, Buddhism, initially Tibetan, has entered the mix. Bits of Hinduism are in there, too: Sufism engaged my attention and still enchants me; nature, Earth and neo-Paganism surround me in my Cotswold town so I dance at solstice and equinox. But Buddhism and Christianity remain my primary focus.
So I call myself a "Buddhist Christian" or a "Christian Buddhist" when asked about that aspect of my belief system.
As for what it means in practice, that varies from day to day, season to season, need to need. My reading of the Christ story urges me to engagement with myself, my neighbour and the world around me. Buddhism helps me discover how, more skillfully, to engage.
The Life of the Spirit
where I should be delighted to discuss it without interrupting here.
I just did a google search on the subject and is based on the review by others on Origen's work. It is quite possible that Origen discussed the issue of transmigration. I think the key in understanding it is in the context on what he may be referring it to. My basic research on this matter points to it being part of his view on restoration of all things. He had a view (which I can relate to) that damnation is not eternal but God eventually will reconcile all things to Himself. This include animals and in this context the issue of the soul had to be addressed. However this view was rejected by the early Church and was the reason he got into trouble. This was probably the case but I think politics had a role in it as well. I actually went to an online version of "First Principles" but chapter 8 was on Angels. Anyway, what Origen was trying to address in the doctrine of restoration of all things is basically pure speculation because it is to address how God will reconcile all things to Himself eventually. This means he is looking beyond the second coming of Christ; the Millenium reign; and even eternal hell. At the moment, Christians are still waiting on the second coming. Origen was getting far too ahead of everyone else.
The problem of reincarnation is a problem for them because in Greek thinking (which Gnosticism is based on) the aim is to free the spirit from the body. Re-incarnation is going backwards for them. I think what you are doing is a good thing. Every religion is exclusive by definition once you understand their core values. What is important is to understand what they are, their truth values and whether they address your spiritual needs. All the best in this respect.
Ancestor worship is to provide a good fundamental ethic for the future generation to pay respect and learn from their love and wise experiences. This would make the world of graceful and lovely place to live in. Worship ancestors is also not separate from one's true love as ancestor is by nature Buddha. Jesus is sort of regarded as the ancestor of all Christian disciples which its disciples often seen worship him becos of His experiences of love.