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.
Do Buddhists believe in reincarnation and karma?
Do Buddhists believe in reincarnation and karma? Is this an important aspect of Buddhism?
0
Comments
Can we also discus in this thread "Should women be allowed to vote?" and "Should Buddhists Jihad against the Vatican?"
:P
Only Joking!
Karma/Kamma is a fundamental teaching. I'd suggest the sites http://www.BuddhaNet.net and http://www.AccessToInsight.org to familiarize yourself with the basics if you don't have 'em down yet.
Well done Mat...Now that, is funny......
The answers to both are 'yes probably, but not if it scares the horses'.....
BuddhaOdin, I think you'd have to consider both the concept of re-birth, and Reincarnation from a Buddhist Tradition perspective. Tibetan Buddhists consider reincarnation a reality, but only for highly elevated Lamas (the most obvious example being HH the Dalai Lama) whereas for 'ordinary Buddhist Tibetan (and otherwise) mortals, rebirth will have to suffice. Other traditions ascribe to re-birth but not reincarnation.
And even in Tibetan tradition, the reincarnated Lama (known as a Tulku) is not a direct carbon copy....
Believing in Kamma is a different concept, because I personally know the term Karma is highly misunderstood, and misinterpreted by many people in the west who know little about it.
The most common definition of Kamma, amongst the 'incognoscenti' is "What goes around comes around" which whilst containing a grain of truth, is over-simplified and inaccurate, per se....
What do you think is meant by 'Karma'?
I used to strongly believe in rebirth until recently I read selected Buddhists texts and the suttas more closely. In fact, that belief is not relevant to Buddhist practice at all and worse still, the more you entertain the idea the more you embrace the very thing you are trying to eliminate: Ego Clinging
Ego clinging = clinging to concept of self?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." is something to take to heart. If we do not believe, that does not mean we must disbelieve. We as Buddhists can take the middle way of neither belief nor disbelief, but few of us (that I know) have taken that route.
This is why I agree with what someone said earlier... the Buddha would not have entertained such discussions. If you take away the texts, because they are after all just fallible human works and tradition (take the Bible for instance), the question of literal rebirth becomes neither provable nor disprovable. If we disbelieve merely because there is no evidence to support it, it becomes the same as disbelieving in God because there's no evidence; and if we remember, the question of God's existence and speculation thereto was ignored by the Buddha.
I think you are going on and on about whether or not belief in rebirth is good or disbelief is good. What I said was that it is not relevant.
He said it is a belief associated with clinging but entertains morality. It is not relevant to the path of freedom from dukkha
Not relevant to freedom from suffering but might be a good topic for debate
I'm not saying that rebirth is necessary for practice (in my experience it isn't necessary, but helpful for some), but I am pointing out that an active disbelief in rebirth becomes an attachment, a fetter, as well. Some people seem to think that a belief in rebirth is bad without thinking, or considering, that the opposite view can be just as harmful. The concept of rebirth as it is taught is not harmful, and does help some people; it is our attachments, including disbelief, that can hold us back. True tranquility lies in neither belief nor disbelief, but correct conceptual understanding and dispassion.
Either realization will ensue, or we simply will not know. Best to avoid the extremes of belief-for or belief-against, otherwise we end up in arguments that are only for self-gratification and support of our attachments. The wisest thing we can admit to ourselves is "I don't know", because this is the only true answer and any other is born of self.
This is the very point I was trying to make, because your post clearly stated you went from strong belief straight to disbelief. This is what most of us do; we do not consider the middle way, which is the best of all available options given our limited information and inability to prove anything either way.
The last thing we should do, IMHO, is use the texts as "proof" of anything. The teachings are meant to be a representation of reality, albeit on the imperfect conceptual level, and a guide to how we should come to the truth ourselves. We should not make up our minds based solely on the texts, but on direct experience. When we choose to believe or to disbelieve based on this text here, or that text there, without the element of direct experience to support it... we're not applying the Buddhist method. We wouldn't have proof of God's existence simply because the Bible says He exists; but at least as Buddhists we could concede it's possible that He exists and we can't know for sure. This is the same, and for our own religion and practice it's even more important that we "step back" and see what our beliefs are truly made of.
Oops did I end that in a preposition? Can I do that? What *is* a preposition exactly? Am I going to get my hand slapped by the English teacher? Nevermind...
Also of note, it's easy to become entangled, hopelessly attached, to the texts. Several people I know practically quote the Pali Canon every time they have something to say, because they mistake knowing the words for having wisdom. Knowing the words is only the first step; true wisdom comes after correctly understanding the meaning of the teachings on the conceptual level, following the path rightly and then realizing the truth for one's self. This is why there are so many forms of Buddhism yet they can all lead to the same place with different texts as the basis for their practices (or even no written texts at all). It's not about the words.
If one understands rebirth as the Tibetans teach it, it has the opposite effect ... namely, ego-releasing.
FoibleFull ... body, mind, emotions, and that concept of identity and recognition ... all these remain behind. What continues is only the sum total of karma and habits.
I couldn't read the whole of your reply Stephen but I get what you are trying to say here; belief as well as disbelief without any solid proof is just "belief" and strong attachment to that view is unhealthy. No argument in that.
I agree that we really don't know and I have said that before. We don't know and the Buddha never really explained it. There are references in the suttas that the Buddha taught rebirth for morality in those people who already believed in it. That is all. It is not relevant to the cessation of suffering whatsoever.
No matter, some Buddhist teachers of this day and age talk about rebirth more than they talk about anything else thus people (at least those that I know) don't really focus on the path to freedom from Dhukka but on how to make their next life more prosperous. In doing so they cling more and more to the self view and the suffering continues.
Read the rest of my post when you get a chance; my entire message is found in the totality of the post rather than just the first two small paragraphs. It's especially important to be mindful of how we use and are affected by the textual teachings of any given Buddhist school.
Trust me, I have found monks who do the same and teach the same to their disciples. In fact almost all of the Dhamma talks I have attended to here in my country have focused on rebirth and karma and how to be born in a better place in the next life. They talk nothing of the cessation of suffering here and now
You really don't know anything till you personally experience it but it is fine to start with what is verifiable and proceed from there IMO
A mere mind-stream is not an ego.
Now, if monks were teaching other monks merely of good karma and rebirth, and not of the cessation of suffering, that would be a problem; but I highly doubt that within the monastic walls the monks are not doing everything they can to achieve the stages of enlightenment to end suffering in the here-and-now.
Everything must be taken within its own context. The lay Buddhist lives a worldly life, remaining in that world of sense-pleasures and luxury by choice, and so as a general rule of thumb the monastic Sangha would not lecture lay Buddhists on the deeper meaning of the teachings, but on that which they can apply to their everyday lives. Following the precepts and acting out of compassion, doing meritous deeds, leads to happiness and well-being in this life. If it helps lay Buddhists to believe they are doing good for their future lives as well, that's great; it may even be true.
There is a lot of confusion; much which can be misleading. The truth is still there, awaiting us.
That doesn't mean only monks should be taught of suffeirng and the cessation of suffering and the laypeople are better off with other moral teachings. I am a lay person who is more interested in the cessation of suffering here and now than where I will be born in my next life.
Why not try zen?
That's good Deshy! I'm with ya, but we must understand that people like you and I and probably a few on this forum are the exceptions to the rule, and the majority of lay Buddhists have less lofty goals than full enlightenment in this lifetime. The monks cater to the majority because really what else can they do? They're supposed to give help that is actually desired, and few desire the deeper teachings which would take them away from their "world"; those who do generally become monks. So lectures would generally be of good conduct, rather than the cessation of suffering; this is completely understandable, and I wouldn't expect otherwise. I'm sure there are exceptions at times.
We are at the place in-between; on the threshold between laity and monasticism. Householder Buddhists that are looking for more. It's a tricky place to be. I can clearly see the path and know how I should proceed, but haven't detached myself from the householder life yet. At least I've come halfway.
We know that aphorisms, used over time, do indeed create genuine changes in attitude and perspective. Because if we do something enough times, even if we don't believe it, our minds will try to lessen the cognitive dissonance by shifting our attitudes.
The same principle is at work when we do prostrations, offerings, chanting, mantras, meditation, mindfulness ... in short, ALL the practices of Buddhism. So when I carry out these actions, I am aware that by performing them, I am shifting my attitudes, and that shift is from importance of me to importance of you-my-kind-mother, and from importance of mundane concerns to importance of Buddhism. And ... the shifts DO occur, albeit slowly.
Do I get merit from these rituals? If I do, I won't turn it down ... but it really has no actual relevance to me in the here-and-now, which is all I REALLY have to work with.
My teacher said to me often "The Buddha taught different things to different people" in helping me to remember not to cling exactly to the words spoken, but to look beyond them into the motions they create, the moon they describe.
What you are basically saying is, since a lot of people are attached to their "world" they would not be interested in Nibbana but would be better off with some moral teachings. The reality is there are a lot of lay folks I know who want to reap the fruits of Buddhist teachings aka Nibbana; the cessation of suffering. That's the reason they come for the Dhamma talks in the first place. That's the reason Buddhists generally follow the Dhamma.
Physical birth is not the cause of your suffering. The cause of your suffeirng is the attachments that come from ego or self identification. The cycle of births and deaths are cycles of the births and deaths of the ego. This happens many times during this lifetime and can be eradicated in this lifetime. The Dhamma is sandhitika akalika meaning verifiable here and now.
Just by curiosity, can you point me to any author that interprets it like that besides Stephen Batchelor?
It's like wanting to have kids but not have the responsibility of being a parent. That's not very likely either.
I will dig up the sutta references for the DO. These texts also will be helpful
DO
Anatta and Rebirth
Nibbana
You can cross-reference the contents with any pali sutta. I have not found anything contradictory so far
Stephen, what you are saying is anyone who needs to end suffering better take the robes since it is much easier that way. Else they better just be content with the moral teachings, do good, receive good karmic ramifications, be happy and content that they have the reassurance that they will be born in a better place after death... Because you cannot have them both... ohh well, whatever you say :crazy:
So Buddhism is escapism? A path to human extinction?
My ex managed to pull it off flawlessly
I heard Buddhist reincarnation explained like this: Its like a tree branch that grows a leaf. The leaf eventual dies and a new, but similar leaf takes its place. Death and rebirth.
I say that reincarnation is an absolute fact scientifically because the second law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy can't be destroyed, only transformed or transferred.
But the unanswered question remains and that is, will we remember and keep our identity and for how long.
.
"...in a closed system" which we are not.
Huh?
>>All attachments must be abandoned in the final reckoning
Yup.
>> and holding onto the householder life is holding on to attachments
Why so for "householders" but not monks? "holding onto" - weasel words.
>> and responsibilities of that life.
Responsibilities are a hindrance too? But only householder responsibilities?
>>Just because people "want" a certain thing doesn't mean that they are "entitled" to it.
Who said otherwise?
>>and it is merely my belief that further levels would also be possible, albeit difficult.
Ok so your view is becoming more and more watered down as we go and contradicts your absolute statements just a few sentences back.
>>I wouldn't try it myself
yeah it sounds scary.:p
Explain what you mean by that.
who do you mean by buddhists?
believe in anything is just a belief
if someone believe in reincarnation it is a belief
if someone believe in karma it is a belief again
belief is not the Truth but the belief help us to search for the Truth
if we satisfied with what we believe and do not try to find out whether it is true or false then that is blind belief
yes kamma/karma is an important aspect of buddhism
Are you saying that karma and reincarnation are not belief but truth? Beliefs can be true.
I admit I unskillfully responded to this idea because I misread it. It would be better to say "This is the second law of thermodynamics?" which I think is about closed systems and entropy. You're talking about conservation of energy?
In that case you'd have to show how consciousness is matter/energy and so we have to go somewhere when we die... might be a bit tricky.
In either case, I was responding with silliness, rather than attempting to prove or disprove your words
With warmth,
Matt
if we believe in karma and reincarnation then those are our beliefs
when we can see how karma works and what reincarnation is then they are not just belief but truth
seeing dependent origination (cause and effect - paticca samuppada) helps to clarify whether such beliefs are just belief or true
key is Understanding the Dependent Origination
Not really. Others were replying to the track you were leading... C U
Depended origination explains if rebirth belief is true or false? But that is in that other version of DO which Buddhagosa interpreted many years after the Buddhs'a death. It has so many flaws in it. DO, as per the suttas, explain how suffering occurs and the cessation of suffering in this lifetime itself.
What happens to one after she/he breaks free from the cycle of existance?