Wait wait wait, Rebirth vs Reincarnation

MindGate

What is:

Rebirth?

Reincarnation?

I thought they were the same thing, the transmigration of something similar to a soul, or conscious, or metaphysical body, or "energy" or whatever makes you you into another body after death. Which to me seems like it goes against Buddha's teaching of not-self.

Or... what? Please use simple to the point answers.

TheJourney

I believe that it is a self-created difference created by buddhists to separate themselves from the idea of a soul since they have been told that it doesn't exist, even though it leaves them not knowing what the hell all of this is. But I could be wrong.

MindGate

I lol'ed at that.

aHappyNihilist

i fully and completely agree with TheJourney.

bodhipunk

This should be called "rebirth vs transmigration", but that's a nuance of translating different words and concepts. In Sanskrit, "punarjanma" literally means "taking birth again" and is what people usually translate at "reincarnation" or "transmigration". However, the Buddhist principle of "punarbhava" or "re-becoming/rebirth" slightly differs. It states that it is the vijnana (consciousness or mind) that carries kammic influence (kammavega) from rebirth to rebirth - for it is a part of Samsara. The lack of a fixed, permanent "self" (anatman) does not imply a lack of continuity.

According to the Bhava Sutta (AN III.76), Budda tells Ananda that "kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture for beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving to be established in a new realm of existence, either low (sense-sphere), middling (form-sphere), or high (formless-sphere). Thus, there is re-becoming in the future."

Also, in the Milindapanha, King Milinda questions Nagasena on how one is reborn without transmigration:
The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is it so that one does not transmigrate and one is reborn?"
"Yes, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn."
"How, venerable Nagasena, is it that one does not transmigrate and one is reborn? Give me an analogy."
"Just as, your majesty, if someone kindled one lamp from another, is it indeed so, your majesty, that the lamp would transmigrate from the other lamp?"
"Certainly not, venerable sir."
"Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn."
"Give me another analogy."
"Do you remember, your majesty, when you were a boy learning some verse from a teacher?"
"Yes, venerable sir."
"Your majesty, did this verse transmigrate from the teacher?"
"Certainly not, venerable sir."
"Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn."
"You are clever, venerable Nagasena."

And so..things continue on. Genetic traits are inherited, traditions passed down and rebelled against, etc. We all have a part in the constant evolution, or rebirth, of existence.

federica

This should be called "rebirth vs transmigration",

Not so.
While your entire post is a very good clarification of such phenomena, it does not answer the OP's question.
There IS a difference between Re-Birth and Reincarnation.

Reincarnation, strictly speaking, means becoming flesh again.
This is what Tibetan Buddhist Lamas do. They re-manifest as actual physical human beings. The Dalai Lama is one such obvious example.
He is a reincarnation of the XIII (Previous) Dalai Lama of his Tradition.
It is considered in Tibetan Buddhism that Elevated and highly-advanced Lamas (Bhodisattvas) can do this, and they can leave clues and hints as to where their reincarnations can be located.
These reincarnations are known as Tulkus, and although they are not precise carbon-copies of the deceased Lama, they manifest adequate and ample characteristics which go to prove their identity as a personification of the transmigrating Consciousness of the previous Lama. They also possess their own characteristics and personality, of course.

Rebirth is something "mere mortals" experience, and it is largely left to chance (and our kamma) to define the 'realm' we will be reborn into.

Reincarnation in the strictest sense as outlined above, is limited to Tibetan Buddhist 'belief'.
Other schools of Buddhism do not ascribe to, or adhere to this principle. Other schools merely speak in terms of rebirth.

Tibetan Buddhism also speaks of the bardo in which we exist between dying and being reborn. usually it is a period of 49 days, but depending on the person's "worth" it might be less, or even, more.
I personally do not adhere to this concept, either.

The terms Rebirth and reincarnation are often interchanged, even by (or even, especially by) Buddhists. But in the strictest terms, the above outlines the difference.

I hope this helps.

bodhipunk

This should be called "rebirth vs transmigration",

Not so.
While your entire post is a very good clarification of such phenomena, it does not answer the OP's question.
There IS a difference between Re-Birth and Reincarnation.

Reincarnation, strictly speaking, means becoming flesh again.
This is what Tibetan Buddhist Lamas do. They re-manifest as actual physical human beings. The Dalai Lama is one such obvious example.
He is a reincarnation of the XIII (Previous) Dalai Lama of his Tradition.
It is considered in Tibetan Buddhism that Elevated and highly-advanced Lamas (Bhodisattvas) can do this, and they can leave clues and hints as to where their reincarnations can be located.
These reincarnations are known as Tulkus, and although they are not precise carbon-copies of the deceased Lama, they manifest adequate and ample characteristics which go to prove their identity as a personification of the transmigrating Consciousness of the previous Lama. They also possess their own characteristics and personality, of course.

Rebirth is something "mere mortals" experience, and it is largely left to chance (and our kamma) to define the 'realm' we will be reborn into.

Reincarnation in the strictest sense as outlined above, is limited to Tibetan Buddhist 'belief'.
Other schools of Buddhism do not ascribe to, or adhere to this principle. Other schools merely speak in terms of rebirth.

Tibetan Buddhism also speaks of the bardo in which we exist between dying and being reborn. usually it is a period of 49 days, but depending on the person's "worth" it might be less, or even, more.
I personally do not adhere to this concept, either.

The terms Rebirth and reincarnation are often interchanged, even by (or even, especially by) Buddhists. But in the strictest terms, the above outlines the difference.

I hope this helps.

Yes, it helps but I thought my post was also clarifying that there is a difference between what is called rebirth and reincarnation. They may be used interchangeably, but they are completely different at least in terms of what affects rebirth. Tibetan Buddhists have a rich culture of tantra, and I'm sure reincarnation plays a large role. Wasn't the Bardo Thodol (which became popularly known as the "Tibetan Book of the Dead") intended to guide people through the interval of "bardo"?

federica

Yes, it helps but I thought my post was also clarifying that there is a difference between what is called rebirth and reincarnation.

No, your post clarifies the essence of what re-birth is. or isn't.

Tibetan Buddhists have a rich culture of tantra, and I'm sure reincarnation plays a large role. Wasn't the Bardo Thodol (which became popularly known as the "Tibetan Book of the Dead") intended to guide people through the interval of "bardo"?

Perhaps it is, but as I don't adhere to Mahayana/Tibetan Buddhism, I'm afraid the work is entirely irrelevant to me.

Dazzle

Ajahn Sumedho of the Theravada Forest Tradition has the following to say about
reincarnation in his book 'The Mind and the Way'in the section 'Reincarnation v. Rebirth' page 52 (which can be read at Google Books)......

"With regard to reincarnation, people often ask "If there isn't any soul, how can anything be reborn, What carries through from one life to the next if there is no soul?" Now the teaching of reincarnation is not really a Buddhist teaching at all - its Hindu. In the Hindu treatment of reincarnation you go from one body to another. If you're born into a low caste, you must wait for the next reincarnation, your next lifetime, when you might be born into a higher caste.

In Buddhism that would be considered superstition because it cannot be proved, and it tends to make one think that there is purity in being born in a certain class or caste."

continued here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ux8ssVQQQJ4C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=reincarnation+Ajahn+Sumedho&source=bl&ots=yeuzCiahzv&sig=1hPc4PPWDI87cvhIaEFO7AvoEx4&hl=en&ei=4SceTf_vAYqEhQfqk8S3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false




:clap:

Dazzle

I don't know how that clapping smilie appeared on the bottom of my above post !
The smilie box dropped down by mistake, lol!

Dazzle

deleted

bodhipunk

No, your post clarifies the essence of what re-birth is. or isn't.

You said reincarnation "means becoming flesh again", and under such a broad definition so does rebirth. The question is what becomes "flesh" (or anything else)? Transmigration states that it is a personal "self" as some kind of abiding entity. Rebirth simply states that it its kammic influence (kammavega) serving as the field of consciousness (vijnana).

I'm not saying that rebirth or reincarnation are mutually exclusive terms, either. I'm just saying that a lot of people confuse rebirth with, as the OP put it, "the transmigration of something similar to a soul, or conscious, or metaphysical body, or 'energy' or whatever makes you you into another body after death. Which to me seems like it goes against Buddha's teaching of not-self." All I'm saying is that when the Buddha talked about rebirth, he was not necessarily referring to transmigration.

federica

You said reincarnation "means becoming flesh again", and under such a broad definition so does rebirth. The question is what becomes "flesh" (or anything else)? Transmigration states that it is a personal "self" as some kind of abiding entity. Rebirth simply states that it its kammic influence (kammavega) serving as the field of consciousness (vijnana).

Which is why I also pointed out that the terms are used interchangeably.. But in the strictest intention of the definition, I also outlined a clarification.

I'm not saying that rebirth or reincarnation are mutually exclusive terms, either. I'm just saying that a lot of people confuse rebirth with, as the OP put it, "the transmigration of something similar to a soul, or conscious, or metaphysical body, or 'energy' or whatever makes you you into another body after death. Which to me seems like it goes against Buddha's teaching of not-self." All I'm saying is that when the Buddha talked about rebirth, he was not necessarily referring to transmigration.

And as I said, your post clarified that wonderfully.
It cleared it up for me, and I think that's what we're both trying to do, aren't we?

(smiley Fully intended as a friendly connection, not as a patronising putdown, as others have theorised in other threads.)

Jeesh, we need disclaimers for smiling, now!

:rolleyes:

tariki

I can only speak for myself. In spite of reflecting on the "neti neti" (not this not this) of the "hindu" approach, I have also reflected -as much as possible given my own intellect - the words from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, that "anatta" is the central teaching of Buddhism "without understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogther impossible".

As well asreflecting, their is "practice" - whatever form it may take. For me there is what could be called an "ambience" created by the "Strategy of perception" that there is no abiding self.

Therefore, for me, thinking of "reincarnation" is one thing, "rebirth" another. Rebirth opens the present moment to "suchness//emptiness" in a way that the idea of reincarnation does not. It is the "buddhist" ambience.

I do not agree at all the "Buddhists have been told that the soul does not exist" and have manufactured a difference to suit. I believe they have been told that there is in fact "no self" from the beginning; and therefore that it has nothing to do with becoming empty, but in the realisation hat we are empty to begin with.

So for me, reincarnation speaks of linear time. Rebirth of Now.

federica

...And there's another take on it.
All we can do, is to do exactly that.
'Give' our 'take on it'.

Give - and take.


(another sincere smiley....)

tariki

Again, for me "reincarnation" implies metaphysical speculation, which is not my own particular fancy.



(!!)

tariki

I don't know how that clapping smilie appeared on the bottom of my above post !
The smilie box dropped down by mistake, lol!

I though it was quite becoming.........I loved it.....

:eek2:

thickpaper

Do we all agree that both rebirth and reincarnation pertain to an afterlife?

Kartari

Both reincarnation and rebirth address the question of what happens to us after death, but in different ways.

Reincarnation is simply the recurring cycle of one's permanent soul (atman) in a new body and mind.

As for rebirth... Author and Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh uses a great analogy of waves to ocean when comparing the self (a wave) to existence (the ocean). To my memory, he means it in the sense of interbeing. But I think it holds true for the notion of rebirth as well. When a wave forms, rides atop the ocean's surface, and finally falls, it is like someone being born, living for a time, and finally dying. It appears to be something self-contained and identifiable. However, what is the wave but water? The wave is really water taking shape for a time, and we in delusion think it has been born, lived and died, when in reality it has always been part of the ocean.

Reincarnation is a Hindu concept, whereas rebirth is a Buddhist one. However, as mentioned by other posters, the two traditions meld a bit, as in the case of Tibetan lamas being able to intentionally reincarnate.

federica

Yup, I'm with Kartari on this one. It's pretty much as I see it....

compassionate_warrior

I appreciate your first post, Bodhipunk; we could have used you on the "What carries over from one life to the next?" thread. Very helpful post.

tariki

Do we all agree that both rebirth and reincarnation pertain to an afterlife?

Irrespective of what they may or may not potentially pertain to, my own experience is that anything to do with an "afterlife" necessarily involves some form of speculation that has an adverse effect upon practice.

thickpaper

Do we all agree that both rebirth and reincarnation pertain to an afterlife?

Irrespective of what they may or may not potentially pertain to, my own experience is that anything to do with an "afterlife" necessarily involves some form of speculation that has an adverse effect upon practice.

This may be true, but that wasn't the question.

tariki

Do we all agree that both rebirth and reincarnation pertain to an afterlife?

Irrespective of what they may or may not potentially pertain to, my own experience is that anything to do with an "afterlife" necessarily involves some form of speculation that has an adverse effect upon practice.

This may be true, but that wasn't the question.

OK, I would then say, for all practical intents and purposes, NO, "we" do not agree.

thickpaper

OK, I would then say, for all practical intents and purposes, NO, "we" do not agree.

Then why care about what is reborn? This is a bit I have never got. I can see why we would care about heaven or hell, but why care about rebirth? Why invest a moment of this life for the life reborn?

tariki

Could you perhaps explain what you mean by "caring" about rebirth?

For me it is about understanding the first truth, the truth of suffering, and letting go.....This is worth the investment. And for me, if the "answer" is found, all else is taken care of.

thickpaper

>>>>"tariki">Could you perhaps explain what you mean by "caring" about rebirth?

What I mean is that we take actions in this life to reduce the suffering in some other life.


>>>For me it is about understanding the first truth, the truth of suffering, and letting go.....This is worth the investment. And for me, if the "answer" is found, all else is taken care of.


I can see very much why it's worth the investment in this life.This is Dharma to me. I don't understand to connection with some future life. It seems to me clinging to the hope that this is not my only life.

bodhipunk

What I mean is that we take actions in this life to reduce the suffering in some other life.

Why not take actions in this life to reduce the suffering in this life, whether there is some other life or not?

I can see very much why it's worth the investment in this life.This is Dharma to me. I don't understand to connection with some future life. It seems to me clinging to the hope that this is not my only life.

Why hope that there is another life? That's just continuing suffering. When Nirvana is attained, rebirth ceases.

compassionate_warrior

Reincarnation is simply the recurring cycle of one's permanent soul (atman) in a new body and mind.

Reincarnation is a Hindu concept, whereas rebirth is a Buddhist one. However, as mentioned by other posters, the two traditions meld a bit, as in the case of Tibetan lamas being able to intentionally reincarnate.

"...the recurring cycle of one's permenent soul"? Is there a textual reference for that (I don't mean to be a stickler). Bodhipunk's contribution, explaining that consciousness, not soul or "self" is the vehicle for karmic influence from one life to the next, makes sense to me. Everything I've read says there is no soul that transmigrates. I don't know; maybe "consciousness" and "mind" are not that different from "soul", maybe it's a semantic game. But I think these are important differences. It's possible, IMO, for "mind" to transmigrate, without there being a "soul". I don't think this is splitting hairs, is it?

compassionate_warrior

What I mean is that we take actions in this life to reduce the suffering in some other life.

Why not take actions in this life to reduce the suffering in this life, whether there is some other life or not?

I can see very much why it's worth the investment in this life.This is Dharma to me. I don't understand to connection with some future life. It seems to me clinging to the hope that this is not my only life.

Why hope that there is another life? That's just continuing suffering. When Nirvana is attained, rebirth ceases.

We can do both; take actions in this life to reduce suffering in this life and bring ourselves closer to Liberation, and take actions to reduce suffering in future lives as well. (Actually, the former serves the latter.) We may get lucky and realize Nirvana in this lifetime. Or...not.

We don't hope for a future life. We hope for Liberation in this life. But we recognize that that may not happen. Not everyone is so fortunate or skillful.

bodhipunk

"...the recurring cycle of one's permenent soul"? Is there a textual reference for that (I don't mean to be a stickler). Bodhipunk's contribution, explaining that consciousness, not soul or "self" is the vehicle for karmic influence from one life to the next makes sense to me. Everything I've read says there is no soul that transmigrates. I don't know; maybe "consciousness" and "mind" are not that different from "soul", maybe it's a semantic game. But I think these are important differences. It's possible, IMO, for "mind" to transmigrate, without there being a "soul". I don't think this is splitting hairs, is it?

Well, is the mind really transmigrating? It's not really the same consciousness (nor is it entirely different), rather it's more like a causal continuum or stream of consciousness that is always changing. The Vinnana Sutta explains how the consciousness is always changing, and how the realization of such can affect one's rebirth.

compassionate_warrior

Thanks for the clarification. It's time for me to study sutras, I see.

thickpaper

>>>Why not take actions in this life to reduce the suffering in this life, whether there is some other life or not?

This is Pascal's wager. Do you really truley think the Buddha would partake in that?

Dharma is about truth and peace, not hedging bets.

>>>>Why hope that there is another life?

Because we have evolved to survive, to strive to live. It is deep in us and all life, to live, to crave life. It is the tension between this innate desire and the reality of impermanence that forms a key ligament of the experience of dukka.

Did not the Buddha see this and guide us to the solution? Or did he instead cling to the ancient, expected and negativising idea of an afterlife?


>>>> When Nirvana is attained, rebirth ceases.

What doe's that mean? How does that cohere with the Mirror of Dharma? "I declare There is no more rebirth for me..."

compassionate_warrior

Hoping for another life is wrong view. We strive for Liberation in this life. One doesn't hope to be reborn, one strives for the cessation of the wheel of rebirth.

What is Pascal's wager?

(I delicately note that the OP's topic is "What is rebirth? What is reincarnation?" Not "Is there, or isn't there, an afterlife?")

thickpaper

Hoping for another life is wrong view. We strive for Liberation in this life. One doesn't hope to be reborn, one strives for the cessation of the wheel of rebirth.

What is Pascal's wager?

(I delicately note that the OP's topic is "What is rebirth? What is reincarnation?" Not "Is there, or isn't there, an afterlife?")

These threads wind so, don't they.

Pascal's Wager>Do you have google in your part of the internet?

Jason

>>>Why not take actions in this life to reduce the suffering in this life, whether there is some other life or not?

This is Pascal's wager. Do you really truley think the Buddha would partake in that?

I don't see why not. Take MN 60, for example. It's more akin to a Buddhist version of Pascal's Wager than anything else; hence the name, Apannaka, which roughly translates as 'safe bet.' For example, it says:

With regard to this, a wise person considers thus: 'If there is no causality, then — at the break-up of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is causality, then this venerable person — on the break-up of the body, after death — will reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. Even if we didn't speak of causality, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable brahmans & contemplatives, this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a doctrine of non-causality. If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the wise here-&-now, and in that — with the break-up of the body, after death — he will reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him, covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful.

That said, it's interesting to note that the Buddha generally only mentions things like this in teachings concerning morality to those who already have a belief in such things, which corresponds to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]," and rarely do they appear in his 'supramundane' teachings, which correspond to what the Buddha called "noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path" (MN 117).

compassionate_warrior

That said, it's interesting to note that the Buddha generally only mentions things like this in teachings concerning morality to those who already have a belief in such things, which corresponds to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]," and rarely do they appear in his 'supramundane' teachings, which correspond to what the Buddha called "noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path" (MN 117).

And what do you conclude from this, Jason?

Jason

That said, it's interesting to note that the Buddha generally only mentions things like this in teachings concerning morality to those who already have a belief in such things, which corresponds to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]," and rarely do they appear in his 'supramundane' teachings, which correspond to what the Buddha called "noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path" (MN 117).

And what do you conclude from this, Jason?

That a distinction can be made between the two. Although, I think it should be said that while some take this to mean such teachings are better left aside, I still believe they have their place since the Buddha advises in Ud 5.5 that his teachings have one taste, the "taste of liberation," and I consider his mundane teachings as relevant to the path as his supramundane teachings.

compassionate_warrior

What do you think of the belief that comes up in some (possibly all) Vajrayana sects, that the Buddha taught to more realized students, that one can use sensual desire in a method to ultimately overcome, or transcend, desire? One uses that which is a potential obstacle to overcome the obstacle itself? (If I may pick your brain...) I'm asking as a Vajrayana student who has begun to have doubts.

federica

personally, I don't buy it.
I think it's putting yourself in danger, and I really don't think the Buddha would advise anyone - however 'realised' they might be - to do that.
It's like telling a cigarette addict to smoke more, or a drug addict to increase his or her intake.
It just doesn't strike me as being very skilful....

But that's just me....

compassionate_warrior

personally, I don't buy it.
I think it's putting yourself in danger, and I really don't think the Buddha would advise anyone - however 'realised' they might be - to do that.
It's like telling a cigarette addict to smoke more, or a drug addict to increase his or her intake.
It just doesn't strike me as being very skilful....

But that's just me....

Well, they do say that it's a dangerous path. I can't help but wonder how many practitioners use that as an excuse to participate in indulgent practices. I think there is some of that, but there are also adepts who practice legitimately. But it's fraught with all kinds of dangers, without a doubt. Thank you for your honest opinion.

Jason

What do you think of the belief that comes up in some (possibly all) Vajrayana sects, that the Buddha taught to more realized students, that one can use sensual desire in a method to ultimately overcome, or transcend, desire? One uses that which is a potential obstacle to overcome the obstacle itself? (If I may pick your brain...)

I think it's an interesting if dangerous concept, although I don't put too much stock into it myself. I mean, I've never seen someone drink themselves out of alcoholism. But then again, I'm not very familiar with these methods, so I'm not in much of a position to judge them.

compassionate_warrior

I mean, I've never seen someone drink themselves out of alcoholism.

lol. Good point. So this isn't something you've come across in your studies of the texts? I wonder what the source of that is; possibly a tantric text or one of those "revealed" texts, the "terma".

Jason

I mean, I've never seen someone drink themselves out of alcoholism.

lol. Good point. So this isn't something you've come across in your studies of the texts? I wonder what the source of that is; possibly a tantric text or one of those "revealed" texts, the "terma".

Well, this idea may have had its origins in suttas like AN 4.159; although my opinion is that certain tantric texts ran with it a bit too far.

MindGate

I'm still confused. :dunce: Oh well.

compassionate_warrior

There are some old threads on the rebirth/reincarnation theme, MG. A couple of months old, more or less. It's explained there, if you want to do some digging.

I'll check it out (AN 4.159). Thank you, J.

Kartari

Reincarnation is simply the recurring cycle of one's permanent soul (atman) in a new body and mind.

Reincarnation is a Hindu concept, whereas rebirth is a Buddhist one. However, as mentioned by other posters, the two traditions meld a bit, as in the case of Tibetan lamas being able to intentionally reincarnate.

"...the recurring cycle of one's permenent soul"? Is there a textual reference for that (I don't mean to be a stickler). Bodhipunk's contribution, explaining that consciousness, not soul or "self" is the vehicle for karmic influence from one life to the next, makes sense to me. Everything I've read says there is no soul that transmigrates. I don't know; maybe "consciousness" and "mind" are not that different from "soul", maybe it's a semantic game. But I think these are important differences. It's possible, IMO, for "mind" to transmigrate, without there being a "soul". I don't think this is splitting hairs, is it?

Hi compassionate_warrior,

I am referring to the Hindu concept of reincarnation in the passages you question, not Buddhist concepts. You are correct in that the Buddha taught "no-soul" or "no-self" (Pali: anatta or Sanskrit: anatman) concerning the teachings on rebirth. It is only within the context of Hinduism that the concept of a permanent soul or "Self" (Sanskrit: atman) applies. Hindu and Buddhist teachings differ in this regard.

Wikipedia on Atman.
Wikipedia on Anatta/Anatman.