Wait, Reincarnation Thread Has Me Confused :'(

MindGate

So, with all these Buddhists on here, a large majority of them believe in, or believe that reincarnation is possible... huh?

1) I thought the Buddha never taught that. I thought that it was a leftover from Hinduism and that the Buddha was actually against reincarnation.
2) ... If you believe in reincarnation, what do you actually mean by it?
3) What gets reincarnated? Consciousness? Well... isn't that sort of having belief in a soul which Buddhism is against? Energy? Well, that energy isn't "you," now is it?
4) I thought Buddhism taught against reincarnation because they were against "self" which would be reincarnated.

I don't see what you mean by reincarnation. My thoughts were just... the energy and matter that makes you up is just recycled. Ashes to ashes; dust to dust. You're here, and then gone, and then what made you up will make something else up, but that thing isn't you because "you" weren't here to begin with. I know of nothing that can be "reincarnated."

I'm not being mean or looking down on anyones beliefs, I'm just very confused. I thought Buddhists were against that. I was quite confident of that, actually.

aHappyNihilist

my understanding of the buddhist belief is that with your death you affect another new consciousness. like one billiards ball striking another, nothing carries over but one is affected by the Karmic "spin" of the other. those are the buddhist beliefs i'm pretty sure at least, i've been reading basically constantly buddhist sutras for the last few days and that is my impression of the buddha's actual teachings.
so glad my highschool gives me 2 full weeks of christmas break, lot's of time to read... anyway... beliefs may very in certain schools influenced by later post-buddha practitioners.

MindGate

So... then reincarnation doesn't happen. See, I knew it.

aHappyNihilist

gah, well it does in a sense, nothing is carried over except the karmic effects of the past life.

MindGate

But the past life was not "you." "You" do not reincarnate. The whole karmic effects thing, to me, is common sense, and a "belief" in it isn't really needed.

ShiftPlusOne

MindGate, I am with you, but I wouldn't say Buddha didn't teach that. If Buddha didn't teach that, then what did he mean when he said that the tears you shed in this life are nothing compared to the oceans of tears you've shed in previous lives? What did he mean when he said it's hard to find someone in this life who wasn't your mother in a previous life?

What Buddha was against was the idea of a soul. In Hinduism, everything is about the soul, our bodies are vessels for our soles and when our body dies, the soul goes into another body. The Buddhist perspective has been likened to a flame lighting other flames. They are separate flames, there's no connection between them, yet one arose from another.

I think that's the difference between what Buddha taught (rebirth) and reincarnation.

MindGate

So it would be no different than saying... I am the "rebirth" or reincarnation from/of my parents? Which, again, to me, seems sort of like common knowledge if you don't think of it in a mystical sense.

aHappyNihilist

hmm, the concept of karmic effects extending beyond our own span of consciousness into another may be irrelevant but the concept of karma itself is far from irrelevant. i experience karma constantly. science backs it up.

MindGate

Cause and effect, equal and opposite reactions, etc. Yeah, I'm with ya.

aHappyNihilist

yes, also cause and effect in terms of causing others happiness and feeling it yourself.

hmm also it seems i'm being told that some jhanic meditation can transcend the forgotten past lives, although this does seem to clash with the idea that nothing is carried over.

ShiftPlusOne

MindGate, but surely Buddha wasn't talking about parents when he was talking about past lives. I would advise against holding firmly onto your current view. I think you will come across some sutras (those talking about different realms and past lives) which make you think "no, this can't be right at all".

Also a question for the more well read... Where do the accounts of Buddha and some of his followers recalling their past lives come from? Is that in the pali canon? ( @Jason ... you know everything)

MindGate

Well, what are your thoughts, Shift?

aHappyNihilist

there are accounts of non-buddhists recalling past-lives, these are very well documented and checked for possibilities of different explanation and are generally verified to be as legitimate as they could possibly be verified. check this out.

- the first part of a series of videos documenting cases of recalled past lives.

it is worth considering that mainstream science has yet to accept reincarnation but still... i trust the Buddha i'm changing my opinion, on this one thing at least. the evidence of the buddha and this documentary are pretty solid.

MindGate

Souls don't make sense to me and seem illogical. But ya know, does it really matter right now if its true?

If its not true, okay.
If it is, okay.

Doesn't matter to me, just doesn't seem to make sense.

aHappyNihilist

logically it doesn't affect how one would live their life assuming their goal was happiness, and i hold that it is impossible for anyone's (who isn't enlightened) goal to be otherwise (even if that goal is subconscious)

but the question of the truth is still interesting.

MindGate

I have a question though... WHAT gets reincarnated that will still hold memories... and how?

ShiftPlusOne

I believe I don't know all there is to know to make a decision. I am not comfortable moulding Buddhism to fit me, though that's what I used to do. I suppose I just set that aspect of it aside until it makes sense.

aHappyNihilist

you never know all there is to know about any decision, and i don't think your necessarily molding buddhism, more interpreting it. Much of buddhism is ineffable and even that which is overtly stated is often admitted to be up for interpretation.

MindGate

Again: I have a question though... WHAT gets reincarnated that will still hold memories... and how?

kayte

I'm not sure if I'm following all this. I regret that I'm not as well read on the subject as others are. But that's my own fault.

I'll try to go point by point-

1) There is no soul. I don't agree or disagree on this. No one's ever provided proof one way or another.

2) The energy that takes form in the physical world compiles karma from the behavior and choices made over the course of that lifetime.

3) At death, the energy leaves and returns to a new life or just merges with the point of origin.

My question concerns point 3. If the energy returns to a new life- is it a continuation of the karma incurred from the life that just ended, as described in reincarnation, or does the new life come with the karma from some other prior life that presents new challenges?

I'm pretty sure that I've got this wrong, but I thought that I'd ask anyway.

Namaste

MindGate

This energy... who transfers it? What transfers it? We'll all made up of energy, but energy from many many many different sources which have been reused since... the beginning. I don't see how energy can retain karma and then transfer into a new body. I think reincarnation is more metaphorical than literal.

kayte

This energy... who transfers it? What transfers it? We'll all made up of energy, but energy from many many many different sources which have been reused since... the beginning. I don't see how energy can retain karma and then transfer into a new body. I think reincarnation is more metaphorical than literal.

That is how I feel about reincarnation and past life karma. Who is the cosmic scorekeeper? Wouldn't it take some set mechanism to make it all work?

MindGate

It seems just like wishful thinking to me.

And about people who recall past lives... Prophets meet God. Wiccans see fairies and do magic. Satanists party with Lucifer. Some people can see ghosts. Some people see demons.

A lot of people see a lot of things and recall a lot of things, but it doesn't make these experiences legit. Theres a rational explanation for everything... well, most things.

Dazzle

I didn't watch the video about past life regression, but as a qualified hypnotherapist I don't recommend it, its known to be completely unreliable. A Tibetan Buddhist teacher advised me about its unreliability too and I have never offered such sessions myself.

Whoknows

Hi MG,

There are two levels to reality, the way things manifest and their ultimate basis of existence. The way things manifest can be further split based on their method of perception into non-deluded perception and deluded perception. The way things manifest can be described as relative (or conventional or contingent) reality and their ultimate basis (or nature) can be described as anatta or emptiness or interdependent. There is no real difference between anatta and emptiness.

The two truths (ultimate and conventional) cannot be separated in any real way and are mutually supporting. ie things have no ultimate basis for existence (emptiness, anatta) yet they still exist (conventional reality). In other words ultimate reality does not refute conventional reality or vice versa.

The argument that asserts anatta, and by that means refutes rebirth, is using ultimate reality to refute conventional reality, so in this respect the logic is wrong. Rebirth as a phenomenon falls under the guise of conventional or contingent reality. Because it belongs to this category other means than ultimate reality (or anatta) must be used to refute it.

The contradiction that you have found in relation to anatta and rebirth is normal for all known phenomenon, ie when not referring to the self this contradiction is generally called emptiness or shunyata. Obvious anatta works for the nature of the "self" but it can also work for (the nature of) your car, the seat your sitting on, the monitor your looking at. Yet it does not refute the apparent existence of the self, car, seat or monitor and if these things have a conventional existence then they can and must undergo change, and if the self can undergo change then the possibility exists for continuity beyond the present life.

On the conventional front, if rebirth did exist, then it would be quite difficult to prove successfully from a Western paradigm. Firstly, you would need to have information on an individual before death and then locate the next emanation of this individual and try to find enough similarities in the two individuals to establish some sort of causal relationship. In theory you could psychologically analyse and store data over a large population over time, and, based on time of death and birth, correlate individuals who could be involved in a causal relationship. Possibly you could establish beyond doubt if such a relationship were possible. But imagine the privacy implications and the possibility for misuse for this data. And this would also be limited to individuals who were born in the same area as their previous life, according to Buddhist writings we are extremely lucky to be born as a human, so statistically the chance would be low to be reborn as a human and even lower in the same location. If the chance to be reborn as a human is low then it would be very hard to get a quantity of results that would be considered statistically significant.

One other possibility would be to follow and document a Tulku into their next incarnation, these beings put up with enough from us Samsarins without being subjected to such an experiment but that's my opinion.

My take on rebirth was similar to what Sh+1 said, I just let it go and settled down into enjoying the journey. Maybe one day you'll have some dreams that will change your mind?


Cheers, WK

Whoknows

I didn't watch the video about past life regression, but as a qualified hypnotherapist I don't recommend it, its known to be completely unreliable. A Tibetan Buddhist teacher advised me about its unreliability too and I have never offered such sessions myself.

Hi Dazzle, a good teacher will say what needs to be said based on the perceptions of the audience and the particular moment in time. It is not unusual to hear conflicting information and what's more both instances are correct in their given context. Having said that I don't think Tibetans get hung up on rebirth, to them its just the way things are and I have some suspicion that they would be wondering what we're all yabbering about

Cheers, WK

thickpaper

>>>>"MindGate">>>>1) I thought the Buddha never taught that. I thought that it was a leftover from Hinduism and that the Buddha was actually against reincarnation.

I think this, yes. Before his time and after his time the idea of an afterlife was dominant. He saw the damage this idea does, I belive.

Cinorjer

It's funny, only a few months ago I had a conversation with someone at the office who believed in past life regression and literal reincarnation, and said Buddhists taught and believed this for thousands of years. I pointed out that I was a Buddhist, and that I and many of my fellow Buddhists were highly skeptical of the whole past life regression business and many of us didn't believe in literal reincarnation, either.

It led to some interesting discussion, but the end stance I took was that Buddhists are keenly aware of the tricks the mind pulls on itself, and thus something like hypnotic playacting is more likely than some unconscious resevior of stored past life memories.

aHappyNihilist

ya know, those videos are actually pretty interesting, there are people who were kids who knew exact details about the deaths of others, details from some distant place, not published in any way.

i mean, it's essentially an argument from ignorance, I don't know how they could know that so i'll assume past life regression, but it's interesting at least/

Dakini

The first time I heard the Buddha didn't teach rebirth was on this website. I think the confusion, MindGate, comes from different schools of Buddhism believing different things. That's the only explanation I have.

Reincarnation is core to Tibetan Buddhism. Someone on another thread said that the Buddha himself recalled his past lives after much meditation (no source given, though). Discussion of past lives doesn't have to have anything to do with past life regression techniques. Young children (usually under the age of 6 or 7) sometimes recall details of past lives, and these details have been verified. (LIfe after Life, is one book that investigates this, by an MD who considers all possible explanations each child's unique circumstances and recollections.) And some individuals recall bits of past lives after meditation or spontaneously, no hypno-techniques involved.

I think that if someone chooses to believe there's no rebirth or reincarnation, and has sutric (or equivalent) sources for that, fine. Those who believe in reincarnation, and has sources, fine. As Caz Namyaw pointed out on the "Who believes" thread, sometimes students learn from their teachers, without any source reference. That's fine too. Let's respect each other's beliefs, if theyre grounded in teachings or personal experience. I find the discussion of different views, different interpretations of the sources (or different sources cited) interestintg, and educational, without passing judgment on anyone's take.

MindGate

Again, shamans see spirit animals, Christians see Jesus, Wiccans see fairies. They'll go up to lie detector tests and come out not lying too, but it doesn't mean that what they said it absolutely true.

Dakini

But they all see some divine or spirit being, they don't report seeing nothing. Each perceives through his/her cultural filter. They all report seeing a Light (if they get that far), they usually report seeing deceased loved ones. Anyway, how did we get onto the subject of NDE phenomena? This is NDE related, not rebirth and past-life-memory related.

Let's bear in mind that a significant percentage of the memgbers here are Tibetan Buddhists, so let's not dismiss their traditions too brusquely. Some of their teachers recall past lives or some details thereof(hence the "tulku" designation).

MindGate

When did I ever start talking about NDE? Prophets say all the time that they interact with God, or angels, and stuff. Shamans used to do that too, but I'm sure drugs helped them with that. Wiccans also claim to see fairies. When did I ever mention a NDE?

Dakini

OK, but what do these visions have to do with reincarnation/rebirth? I'm not following you. (It sounded like NDE phenomena. What is this in reference to, then?)

MindGate

People recall past lives and prophets see God. What makes the monks right and the non-lying prophets wrong?

What I'm saying is... why should we believe something just because someone says it?

Guatama Buddha - “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

Dakini

OK, I get your point now. Question everything--this is good. Where are the site's Tibetan Buddhists when you need them?

Someone said the Buddha saw his past lives. Do we believe that, or question it (I wish people would give sources). Ultimately (as I've said elsewhere) the past life memory thing is up to everyone's individual experience or belief. I don't expect people who haven't experienced recollection of past lives to believe in past lives. I didn't.

Vangelis

The Pali Jatakas record many of the Buddha's past lives (over 300 I believe) but also in the Suttanta Pitaka, in the Digha Nikaya and Majjhima Nikaya, sometimes the Buddha would recall a place he had been to in a previous lifetime. Also the record of his enlightenment records him as having remembered many eons of his past lives with no beginning to be discerned. The in many of the suttas, Buddha would also be asked to see where his monks are reborn after they died. He would respond that they were born in some heavenly realm or if they had attained nibbana without remainder then he would say that they cannot be seen in this round of samsara.

compassionate_warrior

Fascinating, Vangelis. Thank you for the sources!

Jeffrey

From the Tibetan perspective there are different levels of teachings. Teachings to keep bad conditions that are unripe for dharma away. Teachings to inspire you. Teachings on the nature of mind or reality.

Rebirth is confusing because all those levels are getting mixed up! That is the confusion in my humble opinion. Humble because I haven't unraveled the levels and it is an open question that I set aside to impregnate in my mind.

compassionate_warrior

Jeffrey, check out some of the other threads on rebirth. Federica, Jason, and others have done a good job of clarifying, and providing sources. I've learned a lot this weekend.

zombiegirl

This energy... who transfers it? What transfers it? We'll all made up of energy, but energy from many many many different sources which have been reused since... the beginning. I don't see how energy can retain karma and then transfer into a new body. I think reincarnation is more metaphorical than literal.

i would say my personal belief is that it is more metaphorical than literal.

i'm down with energy transfer in a very physical way, but the whole karma transfer between lives thing is confusing, and i must admit, i sort of reject the idea. i can't understand how it could possibly fit in with the world around us and i have considered that THIS aspect falls under the "leftover from Hinduism" category.

i think that religious beliefs serve a purpose for people. i don't practice for my next life, i practice for this life. i practice because i see an improvement in the quality of my life now. if some people choose to believe that positive deeds in this life transfer into positivity in the next life, then so be it. it should have a positive effect on their actions, so i can't say it's a bad thing. but a very negative downside of this belief is the idea that unfortunate people in this life did something bad in their past lives and are being punished.

one criticism i recently heard about buddhism was a lady talking about how she was so interested in buddhism that she went to visit several different buddhist countries. in one such country (i seem to have forgotten which, although i want to say thailand), the lady met an older woman who spent her life taking care of physically deformed children. at one point, the lady told the older woman how wonderful she was for taking care of these poor children! to which the older woman replied, "don't say poor children, they must have done something truly horrible in a past life to be born like that."

[DeletedUser]

Buddha never went against the truth of reincarnation that was first witnessed by the ascetics practitioners of India then, from their deep meditation. Buddha is applying the rationale of this reincarnation to help those ascetics practitioners to attain another step of deeper meditation into realization and attainment of enlightenment nature, the same as Buddha :thumbsup:

compassionate_warrior

"don't say poor children, they must have done something truly horrible in a past life to be born like that."

As was explained on other threads, this sort of thing is a wrong interpretation of karma.

thickpaper

"don't say poor children, they must have done something truly horrible in a past life to be born like that."

As was explained on other threads, this sort of thing is a wrong interpretation of karma.

Isn't it! Horrible horrible. This kind of view is the dharma equivalent of "original sin"

Dakini

That story has been circulating for ages. I suspect someone made it up in order to knock Buddhism. Or maybe such an incident actually happened, but the story has acquired a life of its own. Anyway, as has been discussed on other threads, no one really knows exactly how karma works, so we should be careful what we say about it. Some teachers use karma to blame the victim, but I think we can question that, as we should question everything, and make up our own minds.

thickpaper

That story has been circulating for ages. I suspect someone made it up in order to knock Buddhism. Or maybe such an incident actually happened, but the story has acquired a life of its own. Anyway, as has been discussed on other threads, no one really knows exactly how karma works, so we should be careful what we say about it. Some teachers use karma to blame the victim, but I think we can question that, as we should question everything, and make up our own minds.

I thought most buddhists knew what karma was and how it works. At least, the non magical karma?

Nidish

Buddhists use the word rebirth just for convenience sake... It should not be confused with the conceptions in other religions... In this, the Same Person is never reincarnated... It is just a system of cause and effect... And, in this process, nothing actually "Travels" from one body to another... I believe it is the Karmic force... See, this can easily be understood once you comprehend the five aggregates... Form creates feeling, which creates perception, which again creates a "will" or volition and Consciousness... What happens at death is that the form becomes unfit to live, and hence, feeling, perception, consciousness and volition cease from the body.. What remains is the previously accumulated karma by that body's volitional actions... And, this karma(which is called Karma because the energy configuration is not balanced between the Yin and Yang[I prefer to call it this way ] cannot just dissolve into the energy prevalent in the surroundings... So it has to take up another body... So it is Karma, which is created by craving and intentions, etc which drives life... And this, in no way can be called "self" and we can also safely say that the same person is never born again...
So, this is my conception of rebirth in Buddhism... Hope this helps

Love And Light,
Nidish

Jeffrey

Karma is an apparent relative truth. It is not an ultimate truth. Like the sun rises in the east. Really that is not what happens and east is a convention agreed on.

Karma is a tool to rip you out of other wrong views, but it can become a wrong view itself.

Example: everything is meaningless because I will die. Next enter karma! da da dah super karma. Ripping you out of wrong view!!!!

thickpaper

Karma is an apparent relative truth. It is not an ultimate truth.

I think it is a truth true in all world's which have causal interdependence and emergent mental,moral, spiritual experiences. But it is not an ultimate truth in the sense that Annica is, to me.

>>>>>Karma is a tool to rip you out of other wrong views, but it can become a wrong view itself.


I don't see karma as a tool, but a process that forms one of the foundations of sentient reality.

>>>>Example: everything is meaningless because I will die. Next enter karma! da da dah super karma. Ripping you out of wrong view!!!!


Everything is not meaningless just because you will die, but because it is empty. There are no inherent values in Dharma; even the moral aspect of it is explained in terms of actions that can be chosen to reduce suffering and increase happiness in the world, rather than any higher value set, like "God's will."

namaste

Jeffrey

>>>>>>>I think it is a truth true in all world's which have causal interdependence and emergent mental,moral, spiritual experiences. But it is not an ultimate truth in the sense that Annica is, to me.

Yes it is true but it is only an appearance. The spark caused the fire. That is only an appearance. As you agreed it is not an ultimate truth. As laws of physics or forces of nature. This world has a structure to it and how things work. I haven't worked this whole thing out exactly. I have a masters in chemistry so I sometimes wish that some of these lamas would train in science and then see how they would be able to teach.

I think it is based on observations of the mind. Understanding how the mind works. The mind learns about gravity and then it has these concepts about how gravity work. But grasping to these concepts produces dukkha. At the boundaries of truth. For example when scientists find that they are unable to resolve gravity with other branches of science there is emotional energy around that question. But if you take all of science as not written in stone then it is less suffering I think is the idea.

The extreme view of not closing your windows in a rain storm because wet floor is only an appearance is not the intention of that teaching on a distinction between ultimate and relative truths. Actually ultimate and relative is only a tool. Its a view. In my opinion not the best view of reality but it is a tool.

The utility of viewing karma as a tool? Well its like all dharma. Gods can become demons. The dharma can bite back and hurt you if you misunderstand its usefulness. The goal of the dharma is to end suffering and if a view of karma is causing you suffering then isn't that something to think about?




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Example: everything is meaningless because I will die. Next enter karma! da da dah super karma. Ripping you out of wrong view!!!!


>>>>>Everything is not meaningless just because you will die, but because it is empty. There are no inherent values in Dharma; even the moral aspect of it is explained in terms of actions that can be chosen to reduce suffering and increase happiness in the world, rather than any higher value set, like "God's will."

I agree this sounds like the right track of thinking. I was giving an example of 'a' wrong view that karma could pull you out of. Another wrong view is that my bad actions or good actions don't matter because I have no control over the future and what will be will be. That is another wrong view that causes suffering because first of all you could create conditions that don't allow you to practice. By negative karma. Second, ethics itself is an expression of your dharma activity and has value in itself unattached to any other goal. Giving for the expression of deepest nature rather than to create good karma.

thickpaper

>>>"Jeffrey">>>Yes it is true but it is only an appearance. The spark caused the fire. That is only an appearance.

But the spark would have caused the fire even if it was never seen. even if there were no observers in existance.


>>>>The utility of viewing karma as a tool? Well its like all dharma. Gods can become demons. The dharma can bite back and hurt you if you misunderstand its usefulness.

I just don't get any of this.


>>>>The goal of the dharma is to end suffering and if a view of karma is causing you suffering then isn't that something to think about?

If it is Wrong View of karma then yes.

>>>>Another wrong view is that my bad actions or good actions don't matter because I have no control over the future and what will be will be.

This is certainly not true within the dharma context as I understand it. You have control, all you are is choices, between neurons in your head up to restaurants on your iphone or when next to exhale, its all just conditionals, this or that.

If I am wrong, please illuminate my error.

namaste and nice to talk:)