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.
Rebirth as motivation
Ficus_religiosa
Veteran
Running the risk of becoming unpopular, I ask this question:
I do not believe in any kind of afterlife or after life existence other than the purely material, as I think both humans, animals, plants, and the world and the universe as such to exist of purely material components. Thus I view my "next life" as a "life" where "I" will decompose and continue existence as part of many different beings - organic and inorganic. Part of me will be sucked into the roots of a plant, thereby part of me continue as a plant. Part of me will be drawn with water down into the earth to be washed out in an ocean sometime where it may fall to the bottom of the sea. An earthquake could make the parts fall into the depths of our planet, only to be spew out of a volcano.
Buddha said, that rebirth is necessary to motivate humans to act "nice" - bad actions = bad karma = bad rebirth.
But I just don't see why a selfish idea of a better rebirth is necessary to motivate humans to act rightfully. I want to act rightfully and follow the path (as a lay-practitioner) despite not believing in rebirth of metaphysical karmic reactions. I wanna do this because I have realized that it brings happiness to me and people around me. Even though the happiness is impermanent, I think it is extremely valuable. Happy (healthy) people do not commit crimes, or hurt each other - as such countries with high equality and welfare systems generally has lower crime and corruption rates than countries with inequality and no welfare. If we take care of each other, no one has to only think about themselves. And even if this life is only impermanent, who can say they don't want it to be pleasing anyway?
Freddy Mercury from Queen once sang "just one year of love is better than a lifetime alone".
My belief in karma (as mentioned in the oil spill debate) is purely an acknowledgement of causality and hidden effects - you reap as you sow, unless some lucky event prevents it. The pay off comes here-and-now (in this life) or not at all.
My question is thus: Why should rebirth be the only reason to act rightfully?
True compassion comes not from wanting to save oneself, but from acting selflessly and compassionately regardless of the promises of a better future.
You realize that there is nothing on the other side of death, and you know that whatever you do it does not mean anything when you die (Buddhas exact reason for some of his "unanswerable questions"), but despite this nihilism find the true compassion and value it.
I do not believe in any kind of afterlife or after life existence other than the purely material, as I think both humans, animals, plants, and the world and the universe as such to exist of purely material components. Thus I view my "next life" as a "life" where "I" will decompose and continue existence as part of many different beings - organic and inorganic. Part of me will be sucked into the roots of a plant, thereby part of me continue as a plant. Part of me will be drawn with water down into the earth to be washed out in an ocean sometime where it may fall to the bottom of the sea. An earthquake could make the parts fall into the depths of our planet, only to be spew out of a volcano.
Buddha said, that rebirth is necessary to motivate humans to act "nice" - bad actions = bad karma = bad rebirth.
But I just don't see why a selfish idea of a better rebirth is necessary to motivate humans to act rightfully. I want to act rightfully and follow the path (as a lay-practitioner) despite not believing in rebirth of metaphysical karmic reactions. I wanna do this because I have realized that it brings happiness to me and people around me. Even though the happiness is impermanent, I think it is extremely valuable. Happy (healthy) people do not commit crimes, or hurt each other - as such countries with high equality and welfare systems generally has lower crime and corruption rates than countries with inequality and no welfare. If we take care of each other, no one has to only think about themselves. And even if this life is only impermanent, who can say they don't want it to be pleasing anyway?
Freddy Mercury from Queen once sang "just one year of love is better than a lifetime alone".
My belief in karma (as mentioned in the oil spill debate) is purely an acknowledgement of causality and hidden effects - you reap as you sow, unless some lucky event prevents it. The pay off comes here-and-now (in this life) or not at all.
My question is thus: Why should rebirth be the only reason to act rightfully?
True compassion comes not from wanting to save oneself, but from acting selflessly and compassionately regardless of the promises of a better future.
You realize that there is nothing on the other side of death, and you know that whatever you do it does not mean anything when you die (Buddhas exact reason for some of his "unanswerable questions"), but despite this nihilism find the true compassion and value it.
0
Comments
Nios.
where did he say this? Even bhikkhu bodhi, who firmly believes in rebirth, has stated the Buddha taught morality which does not rely on any belief system to prop it up.
It's important to understand this.
read this:
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_The_Danger_of_I.htm
It's not. Whether or not your stream of consciousness continues in some form is open to debate. I myself believe in some form of continuation of the stream of consciousness, but that's just me- I believe that because through my lifetime I have believed strongly in Mahayana/Vajrayana, which both state that the stream of consciousness continues toward another birth after death, such that if I perform good works in this life, to some extent that adds momentum in my stream of consciousness toward a rebirth that is at least as "fortunate" as this one, maybe better.
But that's not the only reason I try to perform good works. I usually do that for its own sake.
But to answer your question, the thought of rebirth is not the only motivation for performing good works. All the reasons you cite are perfectly good reasons, and if all that works for you, then that's good. It just doesn't work for me.
Just speaking for myself, not believing in some sort of continuation of the stream of consciousness seems kind of existentialist/nihilistic, and would call for more of an "existential courage" approach than Buddhism. There may be elements of Buddhism that are comparable to Western atheist existentialism, and if they work for you, then they do.
But Buddhism plays close attention to the state of consciousness of the individual seeker/practitioner, and there must be some reason that there is such a systematic and complex approach to the individual stream of consciousness.
There might be individuals that believe that the "recycling" of their molecules in the exclusively physical sense is not enough to make them want to endure suffering or even to endure Buddhist practice when the pain is so great that they might as well just commit suicide, because all that's really going to happen is that their physical molecules get recycled.
If there's no continuity of the stream of consciousness, if consciousness is ultimately absurd and meaningless, then life itself is absurd and meaningless. "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Not for me. And it sounds more like existentialism than Buddhism to me.
I think systematic scientific study of consciousness has only been going on in the West for a few decades, whereas in Buddhism it's been going on for 2500 years. I think when Western systematic study is applied as long and as arduously to consciousness as it has been to say, quantum physics, then we'll know a whole lot more about the nature of consciousness. I know what Mahayana and Vajrayana "adepts" seem to have discovered, and I know that work in modern neuroscience has begun to shed favorable light on what those "adepts" have been doing for hundreds if not thousands of years.
It all boils down to the question "Why not just commit suicide?" For me, I fear unfortunate reincarnation. But that's just me.
Read Kohlberg's levels of moral development/reasoning. There are many who only respond to the threat of a big stick.
And responding to the threat of a big stick is not Buddhism, although it may lead to Buddhism.
This is the reason for the different traditions/schools. Just as the Buddha explained his teachings in differing ways depending upon the person he was talking to, such is also the reason for Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana. It's not about divisiveness, but about a bringing-together of many more humans.
I hope this has been of help.
Namaste
patbb: I know the difference between rebirth and reincarnation. Both are some kind of the continuation of life after death - thus a text on Buddhanet (I think it's "GQGA") tries to deliver a scientific proof for rebirth by mentioning 1 (one!) example where a girl "remembered" a past life in Spain (She was English). A book is also mentioned where a scientist has found 20 people who tells about their past lives. 20 people.. When doing statistics at least 1200 people are used to make sure the results resemble the actual populace's whatever is being surveyed. Furthermore several scientific branches (as neuropsychology and sociology) have studies into such "memories", and no proof has been found regarding the correctness of any such claims. A lot of false memories has been found though (called "False Memory Syndrome").
As for SherabDorje's answer:
It is existentialism, and I'm a big fan of Albert Camu's thought, that goes something like this: "man must freely choose absurdity" - absurdity being life, and choose because death is not an option. If you kill yourself you do not choose existence, therefore your "choice" is not legitimate.
Existentialism being a wide range of thoughts revolving around the human being as free to choose it's life and values, I regard existentialism and Buddhism to be perfectly compatible.
And that's more Buddhist than my view, which is not entirely Buddhist. I never claimed it to be.
But as far as Buddhism goes, I find the ethics to be the center of focus - not religious notions or old fashioned ways of thinking. Science gives no answer to ethics, so we're free to choose. Why not choose something which brings happiness to oneself and others?
rebirth at every moments. rebirth of the false self.
It certainly seems to be the way such renowned scholars as S. Dhammika view the concept.
The abstract model appeals more to a modern Buddhist, I guess
If Buddha referred to this reality, it mean it was to be relevant to all.
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive either.
Maybe people people, including many Buddhist's, believe the contrary.
Can you be sure you are right? No.
Does it matter to Dharma practice? No, at least not especially (It may matter in the philosophical corners of right view, that's very debatable)
It isn't.
namaste
It's an abstract way to say things - you take a very easily graspable concept (birth) and make it abstract through an analogy. You have to accept the similarities to understand the concept. I do that, by the way.
And yes, the two concepts (rebirth and rebirth) are of course not exclusive
thickpaper: Well, obviously. To question that belief isn't unhealthy though - it makes for reflection
No, and in this case the reason to follow the noble eightfold path regardless is sane enough. Generally the benefit of doubt is not well given religion - simply because religion often corrupts through strange commandments, odd habits and a view on humans as inferior beings, as well as a clinging to old-fashioned standards no longer profitable, exclusive tendencies (with "us" or against "us"), magical (primary process) thinking, hostility towards contemporary science in all it's forms. And yup, I got a quarrel with religion, as you might have realized. That's because religionists always preach, and as good as never are humanist in their views - and I'm a compromise-less humanist.
From what I've read on Buddhism, reincarnation is presented often as motivation, yes, for cultivating as much good karma as possible. So that we don't come back as a worm. So that our next lives are good and happy and comfortable. This struck me as being really selfish though, yes! Not the kind of motivation that I'd come to associated with Buddhism! It seemed like a giant step back to me. "Oh here we go again with the threats," kind of a thing. And then I wondered about it this way...
What if it's all a hoax? What if the buddhas who taught reincarnation, (and here I have no experience really...I haven't read any original teachings that talked about reincarnation,) knew it was all a hoax? Knew that people needed a reason to get their butts in gear. I think someone who posted already said that this motivation is not Buddhism, but may lead to Buddhism. And maybe that's the key. Maybe some people need that kind of motivation to get started. And once they tap into their true selves they can shed it. But still there must be this hoax going around to get people to start on the path in the first place.
I don't know, just an idea I have from time to time. I really hate lying and deception, but I can also imagine enlightened wisdom deeming this a good idea. Possibly... Haha, yeah, I don't know. Reincarnation is something that seems like a nice idea to me. And I'm open to the fact that I may believe in it someday. Or I may choose to dismiss it. Right now I'm just kind of entertaining it. Buddhist philosophy seems so solid to me, and the fact that this is part of it motivates me to give it much consideration.
Which is another funny thing with rebirth as other beings - how arrogant of humans to think that being a worm can't be a good and fulfilling life! I don't fear being reborn as another animal (well, I don't believe in rebirth, but if I did) - not even a worm.
What a silly "punishment" being granted new opportunities as a new life form. I don't even want Nirvana. I can learn so much from living now, and if I could get another shot at life again, I'd gladly take it just to see how that would turn out. I'm curious with life, and I take whatever is thrown my way. As I wrote once before I gladly take what comes, but don't miss what's not here or what is taken - thus I experience the bliss of one who receives, as well as contentment.
I think the idea is that other animals don't have the same brain power that we do, as humans. If you were a worm, you wouldn't have the capacity to be like, "oh wow, I'm a worm. This is neat. I'm going to enjoy this experience and see what it's like!" Your brain would be much simpler than that, and it would be a life as slave to your primal needs. That's what I've read anyway.
Here's something I've wondered about though. We have been given this "precious human birth," but does this mean that Earth is the only planet in the universe with life forms? Or that humans are the most advanced species in all the universe? Why would the cycle of death and rebirth only take place on this one planet? How can anyone know such a thing?
Of course the life of a worm will be more susceptible to suffering, as the worm cannot make any cognitive corrugations to counter it like we can (meditate etc.)
Of course not, but this is ever the way of institutionalized religion, be it Buddhism or Christianity or whatever. Namely, those who are not naturally drawn to the religion can be pushed into it, motivated by fear.
"Truth is subject to practice and testing. If it is proper truth, we definitely should be able to acquire sweet fruits through practice right away. If it only abstractly promises a reward in the next life, this may be an irresponsible trick to delude the ignorant." - Buddha
.
Is it really all that selfish? Everyone aspires to happiness, love, health, and all the great things in this life, so it is only logical to aspire to the same in the next life. It only becomes selfish if this aspiration leads to violating the interests and well-being of others, in which case it has probably strayed quite a bit.
Spoken like a true Dane.
Rebirth is neither the only nor even the main reason to act morally. Compassion is fundamentally a cognitive capacity that develops from wisdom and empathy. It is based on the understanding of interconnectedness and the capacity to feel what others feel, the capacity to put yourself into their shoes, or respectively to see yourself in them.
A very important thought in Buddhist ethics is the equation of morally right action with being skillful and the equation of morally wrong action with being unskillful. I interpret this in a way that skill is a cognitive capacity -some call it wisdom- that allows one to see what is true and right. Again, it comes from the direct (or intuitive) awareness of interconnectedness.
Cheers, Thomas
Well, I think the place I read the motivation-thingy must have been a bad source. I do regretfully not remember where it was, but my primary sources on Buddhism are wikipedia (you gotta be critic, I know, but the site has extensive information from a neutral point of view), buddhamind.info/leftside and buddhanet.net. I've read all texts on buddhamind.info and buddhanet.net
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6231 < a recent example here on the forum.
That's not quite true. It's an ok source, but it's not "neutral." It's someone's interpretation of the suttas and of other people's teachings. The closest thing to "neutral" is the suttas themselves (accesstoinsight.com).
Perhaps.
However, since human actions are often motivated by self-interest, and since Buddhists are definitely not exempted or exculpated from self-interest, this is a real issue. A selfish person is more inclined to make selfish choices in all matters of life, including religion. If a selfish person believes in rebirth, he/she is inclined to act primarily for the benefit of him/herself, which traditionally means merit making for the purpose of a better afterlife. This is certainly common in the Theravadan countries of Asia, but it does not imply that the rebirth tenet itself fosters this kind of attitude.
Cheers, Thomas
Hence my personal preference to focus on this life as much as possible. It might be the only one i get, but even if Buddha is right and rebirth is true, it's the only life i have right now.
My attitude as well:) When Buddha lived, life was more of a toil I guess, and people wanted to escape it into peace. Buddha felt strong compassion for his less fortunate fellow humans, which in turn made his life miserable. No doubt they'd want to get away from samsara.
Today in the west we have nothing to complain about, if not too many choices of luxury. If you were born in a far-away African desert village, fearing as much starvation as roaming raiders, I guess the prospect of a new life would be an unpleasant thought (life as a toil being the only life you'd be able to imagine).
P
For me ethics in not the central focus of Buddhism. The central focus is that suffering is caused by belief in a personal self. That personal self is just an aggregate of conditioning, and in truth does not exist. Once free of this illusion, ones original face blossoms. One is not compelled by "law" to do good deeds so they are reborn, reincarnated, whatever in a better life. From ones original face comes forth true human compassion. When delusion is absence humans are quite content, and willing to be of assistance to others.