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.
it took me a while to really believe in reincarnation. Probably due to my western conditioned upbringing. I have read that both Judaism and Christianity at one point believed in "transmigration" "Each soul comes to this world reinforced by the victories or enfeebled by the defeats of it previous lives" why was this idea later on rejected?
Often times when people ask me to explain why i believe in reincarnation i think of this. Reincarnation (conservation of consciousness) corresponds well with the conservation of energy. Energy can be manipulated and changed but can not be destroyed. what do you guys think?
it took me a while to really believe in reincarnation. Probably due to my western conditioned upbringing. I have read that both Judaism and Christianity at one point believed in "transmigration" "Each soul comes to this world reinforced by the victories or enfeebled by the defeats of it previous lives" why was this idea later on rejected?
Often times when people ask me to explain why i believe in reincarnation i think of this. Reincarnation (conservation of consciousness) corresponds well with the conservation of energy. Energy can be manipulated and changed but can not be destroyed. what do you guys think?
Great points, soulive! I've read that reincarnation (or "transmigration") was eliminated from Christian "orthodoxy" by church elders around 300AD. And I like the term "conservation of consciousness". Still, we're dealing on a theoretical level (i.e. "faith"), since it's impossible to prove that consciousness is conserved and transmigrates.
thank you compassionate warrior. Are any of you guys familiar with the story of arthur flowerdew? I found this to be fascinating and a compelling argument for the existence of reincarnation
First of all, seeing the term "suffering" thrown around kind of irks me. Life, and all it contains, is NOT suffering. It is dukkha. Very different things, given the english meaning and connotations of suffering. Even if everything goes exactly how I want it to go, and I become very happy, it is dukkha.
I find discussions of rebirth/reincarnation to be quite silly. There is nothing you can point to and call self. So, what is there to be reborn? There is simply a constant recycling of the aggregates. The cause of samsara is clinging and craving. Nirvana is simply the cessation of clinging and craving. So, what if nothing changes? It is simply how you relate to it. Samsara is dukkha and is full of impermanence because we don't ACCEPT and become ONE WITH the flow that is. Not accepting it and becoming one with it is samsara. Accepting it and just being one with the flow is nirvana. That's it. If I want things to stay the same, they will change and that is dukkha and samsara. If I accept things how they are, and also accept that they will change and I am willing to accept whatever change comes, then there can be no dukkha by definition since there is no craving or clinging, and that is nirvana. Even though the circumstances stay the same, you have transitioned from samsara to nirvana. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Nirvana is samsara, samsara is nirvana.
Really? I thought Nirvana was the cessation of or release from samsara.
Otherwise, some good points, Flow. But to answer your "what is there to be reborn" question, pls reread soulive's post at the top of the page. It was a good one. Maybe we should create a thread to discuss the subtle difference (if any) between "self" and "consciousness", "conservation of consciousness/energy" and the like. That would be fascinating. Or we can do that here.
Soulive: where did you get that quote about the soul coming into the world reinforced by the experiences of previous lives?
Really? I thought Nirvana was the cessation of or release from samsara.
There only is what is. Samsara is relating to what is through clinging and craving. Nirvana is having a correct view of what is, aka accepting the flow of impermanence and not self, and not clinging and craving. What is stays the same, it is merely how we relate to it.
As for his point on the conservation of energy, I would say energy is just another label for what is. What is continues on. What is is both samsara and nirvana, and everything contained within. It continues, regardless of how I relate to it, and relating to it "wrong" is the cause of samsara, but "it" continues regardless.
What is stays the same, it is merely how we relate to it.
And relating to it differently means the difference between samsara and Nirvana. Relate to "what is" one way--you're in samsara. Change how you relate to it--bingo! Nirvana, the cessation of samsara. They're opposites, not the same.
What is stays the same, it is merely how we relate to it.
And relating to it differently means the difference between samsara and Nirvana. Relate to "what is" one way--you're in samsara. Change how you relate to it--bingo! Nirvana, the cessation of samsara. They're opposites, not the same.
But everything stays the same. Only how you relate to it changes.
Emptiness and form are opposites, too. Yet the heart sutra states that they are one and the same. All these words are just means to get us to a point that is beyond them. They serve their purpose, but fail to be ultimate truth.
Soulive: where did you get that quote about the soul coming into the world reinforced by the experiences of previous lives?
Its from Origen.he was one of the most influential members of the church in the the 3rd century.
"Origen was also largely and ultimately responsible for the coalescence of Christian writings which became the New Testament, even though he had long passed on by the time the post-Constantinian Church officially approved of the twenty-seven with which we are familiar today"
the quote is him talking about what he called the "preexistence of souls" i first read it in Sogyal Rinpoches Tibetan book of the living and the dying (Page 82)
"Origen was also largely and ultimately responsible for the coalescence of Christian writings which became the New Testament,
If that's true, and he believed in the transmigration of souls or consciousness, why isn't that in the New Testament? Did Constantine & co. throw it out?
Only by looking very deeply can we find the answers.
Well yes, but we need some guidance on how to do that successfully....and that's where the suttas come in.
P
Yes, of course. But you won't find the truth in them, that's always been my point in these rebirth threads.
"All views are wrong views"? But the Buddha taught right view vs. wrong view. :-/ ?!
Yes, but you can't say "this sutta is right" or "this sutta is wrong". Because that has nothing to do with right view. Expressing things in words is already changing them, so every sutta is wrong view if you look at it like that.
Like in physics you can describe things by formula's, but are the formula's the phenomena themselves? No. Same with suttas. They are just descriptions of the truth.
Like OneWithFlow says very well:
Emptiness and form are opposites, too. Yet the heart sutra states that they are one and the same. All these words are just means to get us to a point that is beyond them. They serve their purpose, but fail to be ultimate truth.
"Reluctantlyh Origen remains a Father of the Church. This can be seen best in the commentaries of Tyrannius Rufinus, who visibly struggled with his task of transcribing Origen’s works into Latin and the new Roman dogma and made extensive changes to the original text."
They took what they liked and threw out what they thought of as blasphemcy and too radical
The article says that Origen learned much from the pagan tradition of his day (though he was a critic) and adapted the most useful of the teachings to an elucidation of Christian tradition.
Paganism may be where he got the idea for transmigration of the soul (my guess). It also says he believed that souls began as "minds" (similar to "consciousness" in some Buddhist traditions?) Interesting stuff. Thanks, soulive.
'Everything is nothing, nothing is everything.' 'There is no self , so there is no Buddha' 'Very clever, but I dont know what I am saying, Its all nothing...."
We should have a separate category for this type of comments.
The article says that Origen learned much from the pagan tradition of his day (though he was a critic) and adapted the most useful of the teachings to an elucidation of Christian tradition.
Paganism may be where he got the idea for transmigration of the soul (my guess). It also says he believed that souls began as "minds" (similar to "consciousness" in some Buddhist traditions?) Interesting stuff. Thanks, soulive.
The article says that Origen learned much from the pagan tradition of his day (though he was a critic) and adapted the most useful of the teachings to an elucidation of Christian tradition.
Paganism may be where he got the idea for transmigration of the soul (my guess). It also says he believed that souls began as "minds" (similar to "consciousness" in some Buddhist traditions?) Interesting stuff. Thanks, soulive.
wasn't reincarnation part of judaism?
Reincarnation is a part of judaism, kabbalistically speaking
'Everything is nothing, nothing is everything.' 'There is no self , so there is no Buddha' 'Very clever, but I dont know what I am saying, Its all nothing...."
We should have a separate category for this type of comments.
Dakini-I believe Jesus was many things to many people. I'm sure if he was anything like they say he was he spoke of esoteric judaism to some of the jews.
CW- Funny, because he's the second most well-known buddhist, yet people get so thrown by some statements that he makes regularly, as if it's un-buddhist or weird.
This second talk expresses directly the word of the buddha and does help to understand why many western buddhists do not believe in rebirth, I myself do.
This second talk expresses directly the word of the buddha and does help to understand why many western buddhists do not believe in rebirth, I myself do.
It's clear to me from reading the suttas that the Buddha taught rebirth. Whether individual Buddhists believe in rebirth is an entirely separate matter - though people often confuse these 2 things.
This second talk expresses directly the word of the buddha
Not quite, Tom. Brian Ruhe said "rebirth is Right View". That is only half true.
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path." -mn117
Not quite, Tom. Brian Ruhe said "rebirth is Right View". That is only half true.
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path." -mn117
:om:
Noble Right View adds the quality of discernment. But what's the relevance of this to a discussion about rebirth?
Noble Right View adds the quality of discernment. But what's the relevance of this to a discussion about rebirth?
Noble right view adds the quality of experiential discernment and removes implicate views that are based on blind faith. The relevance of this to this discussion is the need for arousing a sense of urgency in the hearts of those on the noble eightfold path, while peacefully letting others believe in re-whatsoever.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
No, I don't believe in reincarnation. Yes, I do hold great store by re-birth.
Noble Right View adds the quality of discernment. But what's the relevance of this to a discussion about rebirth?
The quote is a lead-in to a discussion of mundane vs. supramundane teachings, and in the supramundane, the Buddha taught rebirth. That's how I read it when it came up on another thread.
I am up in the air about it. The science side of me says it's impossible, but the other side says it could make sense if it was explained well in a way that was easy to understand.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no current scientific understanding which makes reincarnation/postmortem-rebirth impossible. It's just that there is no evidence pertaining to the question whatsoever, so when you weigh it fairly against all the other possible scenarios which could take its place, it has to be given an extremely low probability
The quote is a lead-in to a discussion of mundane vs. supramundane teachings, and in the supramundane, the Buddha taught rebirth. That's how I read it when it came up on another thread.
Hi Dakini. That's not quite right. If one examines the ancient sources, it becomes evident the Buddha taught rebirth in a mundane context, connected to morality and merit..
If supposing the vast majority of the people on this board consider themselves buddhist, then would it not be correct to disregard the fact the buddha could see his past lives eons back through history once enlightened, that he could see the kamma works in its complex way?
Noble Right View adds the quality of discernment. But what's the relevance of this to a discussion about rebirth?
Noble right view adds the quality of experiential discernment and removes implicate views that are based on blind faith. The relevance of this to this discussion is the need for arousing a sense of urgency in the hearts of those on the noble eightfold path, while peacefully letting others believe in re-whatsoever.
Yes, I see what you mean. I suppose the transition could be described as beliefs ( and disbeliefs ) being replaced progressively with wisdom.
If one examines the ancient sources, it becomes evident the Buddha taught rebirth in a mundane context, connected to morality and merit..
But ethics ( sila ) is regarded as the foundation for meditation ( samadhi ) and insight ( panna ), ie the Noble 8-fold path. And in Buddhism ethics is intimately related to kamma and rebirth, which is the big picture.
@porpoise, I think ethics are related to suffering and non-suffering. Your suffering is the same as my suffering; I don't want to suffer, so I take it that you don't want to suffer either. That no one does (nor animals/insects, all is mind and form). So I do unto others as I would have done (or not done) unto me. For me at least, that's enough. No way to know about literal rebirth at this point, but I do know my karma in the here-and-now leads either to suffering or peace (and I choose peace), and I have the same compassion for future generations of humans as I do for the current generation, whether or not I'm personally reborn. Maybe some people need more than this, and to that I'm glad they have more.
it took me a while to really believe in reincarnation. Probably due to my western conditioned upbringing.?
My view is the above is just an assumption. There are eastern buddhists that do not believe in rebirth or reincarnation. Your belief in reincarnation just comes from your mind's individual disposition. It is neither western or eastern.
For example, many Asians who come to the West convert to Christianity. Many Westerners, convert to Buddhism. One's race means little here, imo
Reincarnation (conservation of consciousness) corresponds well with the conservation of energy. Energy can be manipulated and changed but can not be destroyed. what do you guys think?
Consciousness in Buddhism is not regarded as "energy". Consciousness in Buddhism is merely sense awareness. The life energy is called "ayu" or "jiva" but not consciousness (vinnana).
It's no biggie because it's not very relevant to how we live our lives. We'll find out for sure when we kick the bucket. Wouldn't we all $h!t Bricks if there's a big cat up there who say's "You didn't serve catkind... You are doomed to for all of eternity to the litterbox of hell... non clumping".
Comments
"Each soul comes to this world reinforced by the victories or enfeebled by the defeats of it previous lives" why was this idea later on rejected?
Often times when people ask me to explain why i believe in reincarnation i think of this.
Reincarnation (conservation of consciousness) corresponds well with the conservation of energy. Energy can be manipulated and changed but can not be destroyed. what do you guys think?
P
the conservation of consciousness (or mind) is a solid argument for rebirth.
it is not impossible to prove, but the current proof is personal (recollection of past lives).
Are any of you guys familiar with the story of arthur flowerdew? I found this to be fascinating and a compelling argument for the existence of reincarnation
http://meerkatz007.multiply.com/journal/item/1350/James_Arthur_Flowerdew_a_story_of_reincarnation_
I find discussions of rebirth/reincarnation to be quite silly. There is nothing you can point to and call self. So, what is there to be reborn? There is simply a constant recycling of the aggregates. The cause of samsara is clinging and craving. Nirvana is simply the cessation of clinging and craving. So, what if nothing changes? It is simply how you relate to it. Samsara is dukkha and is full of impermanence because we don't ACCEPT and become ONE WITH the flow that is. Not accepting it and becoming one with it is samsara. Accepting it and just being one with the flow is nirvana. That's it. If I want things to stay the same, they will change and that is dukkha and samsara. If I accept things how they are, and also accept that they will change and I am willing to accept whatever change comes, then there can be no dukkha by definition since there is no craving or clinging, and that is nirvana. Even though the circumstances stay the same, you have transitioned from samsara to nirvana. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Nirvana is samsara, samsara is nirvana.
Otherwise, some good points, Flow. But to answer your "what is there to be reborn" question, pls reread soulive's post at the top of the page. It was a good one. Maybe we should create a thread to discuss the subtle difference (if any) between "self" and "consciousness", "conservation of consciousness/energy" and the like. That would be fascinating. Or we can do that here.
Soulive: where did you get that quote about the soul coming into the world reinforced by the experiences of previous lives?
As for his point on the conservation of energy, I would say energy is just another label for what is. What is continues on. What is is both samsara and nirvana, and everything contained within. It continues, regardless of how I relate to it, and relating to it "wrong" is the cause of samsara, but "it" continues regardless.
Emptiness and form are opposites, too. Yet the heart sutra states that they are one and the same. All these words are just means to get us to a point that is beyond them. They serve their purpose, but fail to be ultimate truth.
This bears looking into. You have me intrigued.
Like in physics you can describe things by formula's, but are the formula's the phenomena themselves? No. Same with suttas.
Like OneWithFlow says very well:
They took what they liked and threw out what they thought of as blasphemcy and too radical
This explains his story much more thoroughly
http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/
Paganism may be where he got the idea for transmigration of the soul (my guess). It also says he believed that souls began as "minds" (similar to "consciousness" in some Buddhist traditions?)
Interesting stuff. Thanks, soulive.
metta
'Everything is nothing, nothing is everything.'
'There is no self , so there is no Buddha'
'Very clever, but I dont know what I am saying, Its all nothing...."
We should have a separate category for this type of comments.
CW- Funny, because he's the second most well-known buddhist, yet people get so thrown by some statements that he makes regularly, as if it's un-buddhist or weird.
This second talk expresses directly the word of the buddha and does help to understand why many western buddhists do not believe in rebirth, I myself do.
It's clear to me from reading the suttas that the Buddha taught rebirth. Whether individual Buddhists believe in rebirth is an entirely separate matter - though people often confuse these 2 things.
P
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path." -mn117
:om:
P
Yes, I do hold great store by re-birth.
There's a difference.
No proof, just an open mind.
P
P
For example, many Asians who come to the West convert to Christianity. Many Westerners, convert to Buddhism. One's race means little here, imo Consciousness in Buddhism is not regarded as "energy". Consciousness in Buddhism is merely sense awareness. The life energy is called "ayu" or "jiva" but not consciousness (vinnana).
in a pile of dung.