Reincarnation

[Zenda71]

Hello.

I am looking for the thread explaining reincarnation in the Buddhist sense. (I saw your post, Vajra, on CF and wanted to do some reading up on the subject). Is anyone interested in discussing this topic?

With metta,
Zenda

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zenda,

naturally i'm inclined to this conversation as well.

i'll start off the conversation...

what is the difference between rebirth and reincarnation?

 

[Zenda71]

From my understanding, in rebirth an immutable "soul" (or life force) moves from one body to another. I am much less clear about reincarnation. The parable I read was that reincarnation is like a new candle being lit from another candle's fame or a drop of water being taken out of the container, then put back in, and then another one being taken out. This to me sounds like a part of a person's "life force" is transmuted to a new body. The nature of this force is also fuzzy to me according to Buddhist teaching. I've always interpreted as our will to live, our desire to exist, that is transmuted from one form to another.

Vajra, your answer? (Because I just know you're dying to. That's a leading question if ever I read one ... )

With metta,
Zenda

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zenda,


thank you for the post.

how about... anxious to?

nah.. not really.. i'm very curious to hear what others have to say on this subject as well...

however, i would like to clarify one thing that you said...

"in rebirth an immutable "soul" (or life force) moves from one body to another. I am much less clear about reincarnation. "

now.. from the Buddhist view, this is nearly reversed reincarnation, by and large, posits an unchanging self or soul that transmigrates from incarnation to incarnation. reincarnation is a teaching of the SantanaDharma and not of the BuddhaDharma.

in the BuddhaDharma, when we talk about rebirth, we are talking about rebirth of the consciousness. in particular, it is aspects of the consciousness that are reborn... however, i'll save the rest of this till others have responded as well.

in the mean time, if you have the opportunity and the interest, i would recommend this site:

http://www.khandro.net/doctrine_rebirth.htm

of course, this is from my schools point of view

 

[Mus Zibii]

Wow. I had no idea I knew so little about reincarnation. Cool.

 

[Zenda71]

Me? Anxious? Just what are you implying? I mean, I'm not usually the anxious type, except when I am ... but really, do you think badly about me because of it? Hee hee ...


Reincarnation is something I've never taken much of an interest in. So I have to research what my school says. Thanks for the reading!

With metta,
Zenda

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zenda,

thank you for the post.

Me? Anxious? Just what are you implying? I mean, I'm not usually the anxious type, except when I am ... but really, do you think badly about me because of it? Hee hee ...

actually, this was in reference to me you said "..Because I just know you're dying to..." and though i'm anxious to, i'm not dying to make sense...

to answer you question.. of course not how could i... i am a Buddhist after all

 

[Zenda71]

I'm glad you get my sense of humor.

With metta,
Zenda

 

[samabudhi]

Reincarnation is something I've never taken much of an interest in.

Good for you. In Buddhism the subject is so fuzzy and misunderstood, it's more of a bane than anything else. In your research, don't get dispondent if you don't end up understanding it.

 

[Vajradhara]

Good for you. In Buddhism the subject is so fuzzy and misunderstood, it's more of a bane than anything else. In your research, don't get dispondent if you don't end up understanding it.

Namaste Samabudhi,

thank you for the post and thank you for saying that.

i don't think that this can be emphasized enough. there are aspects of the teachings that simply don't make sense to us. this is clearly stated in the Suttas/Sutras as well, so i would say that if this teaching seems to be obscure it may not be relevant to the praxis.

now... there's another way to view this, of course

we can take the view that, at every moment, a new moment of consciousness is arising, conditioned by the previous moment. should we be in a negative state of mind in one moment, the next moment, or rebirth of consciousness, is negative. if the preceeding moment is positive the arising moment will be positive.

as we know, we can change our karma in this very moment by generating Bodhicitta. when this happens, the next arising moment of consciousness is conditioned by Bodhicitta. Bodhicitta is a mind (including thought, action, feeling and speech) totally dedicated to others and to achieving full enlightenment in order to benefit all sentient beings as fully as possible. Bodhicitta is often called the ‘Wish Fulfilling Jewel’, because like a magic jewel it brings true happiness.

http://www.bodhicitta.net/What%20is%20Bodhicitta.htm

this is a completely valid view of this topic, in my opinion, even though it may not be the traditional view. interestingly enough, at this point in time, it would seem that this view, i.e. a psychological rebirth, is the preferred method of Western Buddhists to view this teaching, whilst those in traditional Buddhist cultures tend to view it more literally, in my opinion.

 

[Quesocoatl]

I'm inclined to liken the Buddha's statement that we reincarnate every day to ...simply, the Sunrise and.. eveything over and under as well, as if we were all different petals of the same flower.

From a spiritual perspective, that is. Gravity....and, of course, the little mind games and roles imposed on us by mainstream astrological society. You can take it or leave it.....gravity's hard to forget though.

And, from a realistic perspective, I believe we reincarnate through our bloodlines.....which, back to the flipside of all that, stem directly from the sun...unless, of course, you believe in extra-terrestrials and mankind's origins therein.

Where those bloodlines are rooted.....seems to be a relative concept and, therefore... a highly personal decision, I would think.

 

[Zenda71]

I'm inclined to liken the Buddha's statement that we reincarnate every day to ...simply, the Sunrise and.. eveything over and under as well, as if we were all different petals of the same flower.

...

And, from a realistic perspective, I believe we reincarnate through our bloodlines.....which, back to the flipside of all that, stem directly from the sun...unless, of course, you believe in extra-terrestrials and mankind's origins therein.

Where those bloodlines are rooted.....seems to be a relative concept and, therefore... a highly personal decision, I would think.

Greetings Quesocoat.

What an interesting idea! Is this an idea generated from your spiritual practice?

With metta,
Zenda

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

let's continue with our discussion then.

let's step back a few paces from the topic and come at it from another angle and see what we can discover.

as many of you know, in Buddhism, the idea of phenomena and noumena are considered to be aggregates. are we all conversant with the term aggregate? if not, please ask and i'll explain.

the concept of aggregates cannot be overstated in Buddhist thought as this underpins a great many of the teachings and, from a doctrinal point of view, represents the teaching of Shunyata or Emptiness. this is a very subtle teaching as it has many layers, as one would quite naturally suspect.

essentially, what this teaching is trying to convey to us is that when we analytically search for the "is-ness" of an object, that "is-ness" cannot be found. this is famously retold in Sutra called The Questions of King Milinda* with the analogy of a chariot. for our more modern readers, let's change the analogy to that of a car and go from there.

the dialetic of this exchange is designed to be introspective not extrospective. what part of the car is the "car"? if we remove the tires, is it still a car? how about the seats? the doors? the engine? in short, where, specifically, can the designation of "car" apply other than to the aggregates of parts that comprise the car? the Buddhist answer to this is that it is the aggregates to which the term is applied.

let's take this same approach and apply it to the physical body. which part of the body, specifically, is "you"? where is "you" apart from the parts that comprise your form?

the conclusion of this line of reasoning in the Buddhist tradition is that there is no "self" to be found outside of the aggregates of form and mental composition. no "thingness" to be found other than the "thingness" imputed to the aggregates by our mind. and this is the point. we impute an existence and a permenance to objects which they do not intrinsically have.

*you can read a good translation of this Sutra here:
http://www.miami.edu/phi/bio/Buddha/Milinda.htm

we'll get further into aggregates in the next post.

 

[Zenda71]

A definition of aggregate can't hurt! (Please.)

I'm going to take a stab at defining "aggregate" contextually. I'm thinking that we create aggregates in our mind, which creates the energy (or whatever) that is passed from lifetime to lifetime. That would make sense in terms of the Buddhist system (at least to my limited understanding of it). Until you are enlightened, you keep creating these "mind worlds". But once you are enlightened, you see that they are essentially substanceless, that you create them, thus you cease to create them and are released from the aggregate creating process.

With metta,
ZW

 

[neoxenos]

This is slightly off topic, for it is a Hindu viewpoint. But that is where Buddhism came from, so I hope I do not butt in to much here... I would like to add two cents..

Reincarnation is for those who have incarnated. If we look it up we find that "incarnated" has to do with "bringing something into a human form." But what? What are we bringing into a human form that is not already "human"?

Simply, the transcendental meaning of incarnated means to bring God into a human form. Secondly, only those who have incarnated can be reincarnated. Everyone else simply has multiple births. Conclusion: we are not reincarnating because they were never incarnated.

This is affirmed in the Bhagavad-Gita although it is subtle.

It (the Spirit) was not born; It will never die, nor once having been, can It cease to be. Unborn, Eternal, Ever-enduring, yet Most Ancient, the Spirit dies not when the body is dead.

...

As a man discards his threadbare robes and puts on new, so the Spirit throws off Its wornout bodies and takes fresh ones.

...

He who realises the divine truth concerning My birth and life is not born again; and when he leaves his body, he becomes one with Me.

Quote one and two seem to contradict each other, but the synthesis is found in the third quote, because it is the body that dies and it is the soul that is reborn again. But when the soul submerges itself from That From Which It Came ("Krishna" in this case) it no longer dies is born agian, but rather reincarnates if it pleases to do so...

It is trivial but nevertheless incorrect to say we have incarnated anything and therefore we simply return.

Whenever spirituality decays and materialism is rampant, then, O Arjuna, I reincarnate Myself!

To protect the righteous, to destroy the wicked and to establish the kingdom of God, I am reborn from age to age.

He who realises the divine truth concerning My birth and life is not born again; and when he leaves his body, he becomes one with Me.

Many have merged their existences in Mine, being freed from desire, fear and anger, filled always with Me and purified by the illuminating flame of self-abnegation.

What a wonderful book of wisdom!

 

[Avinash]

the concept of aggregates cannot be overstated in Buddhist thought as this underpins a great many of the teachings and, from a doctrinal point of view, represents the teaching of Shunyata or Emptiness. this is a very subtle teaching as it has many layers, as one would quite naturally suspect.

essentially, what this teaching is trying to convey to us is that when we analytically search for the "is-ness" of an object, that "is-ness" cannot be found...............

...............there is no "self" to be found outside of the aggregates of form and mental composition. no "thingness" to be found other than the "thingness" imputed to the aggregates by our mind. and this is the point. we impute an existence and a permenance to objects which they do not intrinsically have.

Namaskar Vajradhara,

So am I to conclude from the above that the whole creation is made up of Shunyata or Emptiness and would this be the same as calling the whole of creation false or illusory?

 

[Karehndiujo Mohmid]

You can take it or leave it.....gravity's hard to forget though.

I agree.

Too many windows in one's house and the cat's claw, mysterious, begins to sharpen.
Too many mirrors and the teeth.

 

[samabudhi]

Avinash, not false, yes illusory. Nothing is inherently real. That is what Buddhism is saying.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Avinash,

thank you for the post.

Namaskar Vajradhara,

So am I to conclude from the above that the whole creation is made up of Shunyata or Emptiness and would this be the same as calling the whole of creation false or illusory?

hmm.. this is a subtle question, to be sure.

not to put you off, however, this answer is dependent on one's philosophical outlook within the Buddhist paradigm.

there are 4 main schools of Buddhist philosophy which i hopefully haven't mangled too badly:

1. Vaibhasika has been called "direct realism." It is similar to the first few of the Indian views that see the World of Experience as composed of various physical elements that interact with the components of beings.

2. Sautrantika considers that awareness is merely representational. These first two schools consider that there are two kinds of interactors: Physical aspects, ie. skandhas of which one, rupa comprises the traditional elements, and the Mental aspects including consciousness (vijnana), sensation (vedana) which contributes to pain/pleasure, cognition (sanjna) and the impressions derived from experience (samskara.). The 12 Links of Causality go into this in more detail.

3. Chittamatra/Yogachara sometimes referred to as the Knowledge Way or Vijnanavada. It has also been called Subjective Realism, acknowledging that individual factors including karma contribute to an experience of reality that must be different for every being. It mentions the idea of "Buddha nature." Vasubandha and Asanga finally adopted this position.

4. Madhyamika basically holds that there is no ultimate reality in the sense that something exists apart from the experiencer, but that this does not mean that there is nothing at all. It turns around the definition of Shunyata and therefore has been called Sunyatavada. Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are the main proponents. Chandrakirti expounds upon Nagarjuna.

we've started a thread on this subject here:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=719

there are two distinct views that are found in the Madhyamika school, the Savtantrika and Prasangika. i adhere to the Prasangika school, for reference.

in my view, the easist method of seeing the distinctions between these views is by understanding their conception of Emptiness, to wit:

Vaibhasika and Sautrantika:

selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

Chittamatra:

selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of a difference in entity between subject and object and lack of naturally being a base of a name.

Madhyamika (Savtantrika and Prasangika):

Savtantrika:
selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

selflessness of phenomena: coarse: lack of a difference in entity between subject and object (though this is properly Yogachara)
subtle: lack of being an entity not posited through appearing to a non-defective consciousness.

Prasangika:
selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent self-sufficient entity. subtle: lack of inherent existence of persons

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of inherent existence of phenomena other than persons

hopefully, this answers your query to some degree

 

[Avinash]

Prasangika:
selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent self-sufficient entity. subtle: lack of inherent existence of persons

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of inherent existence of phenomena other than persons

Namaskar Vajradhara,

and thank you for that extensive and most informative answer. If I take your own preferred Prasangika philosophy as point of reference, it shows close kinship with the Vishuddha Advaetavaada or the doctrine of Pure Non-Dualism, although strictly speaking the concept of Brahma (the only reality in Pure Non-dualism) is replaced by Shunya in Buddhistic Shunyavaada.

In Ananda Marga this philosophy is considered as nihilistic, impractical and full of contradictions and errors. The sad thing is that no valid logic can be given for Advaetavaada because allowing for proofs would change it into Dvaetavaada (dualism).

I found a story in Namami Krishnasundaram (pg 81) that illustrates the impracticality of this philosphy:

"Once a certain mahaapurusha who happened to be an orthodox Maayavaadin was walking along the road in Kashi [adjacent to Varanasi]. The popular saying goes that Kashi is famous for four things, for shanr, raanr, sinri, sannyaasii - the bulls which throng the streets; the many widows; the stairs which one has to climb up or down every few metres; and the thousands of itinerant monks - and that in Kashi one should carefully avoid these four things. Anyway, one morning a wild bull suddenly started to charge that mahaapurusha, so he ran away as fast as his legs could carry him. A logician who happened to be standing nearby asked the mahaapurusha, "Well sir, if you say that this world is unreal, then the bull is also unreal, so why are you running in fear?" That mahaapurusha would not accept defeat in logic and replied, "My running away is also unreal".