Other questions on reincarnation

intrepidlover said:
But I don't understand the bit about being reborn as a person who has no recollection of previous lives, because they are no longer THAT particular person. But perhaps I have that part wrong.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that it was due to the process of taking birth that caused the loss of memory and not because "they are no longer THAT particular person."

However, through meditation training, it is possible to recollect past lives.
 
Intrepid,

The lady was a Buddhist, nun, and as such had agreed not to become emotionally attached to a man. However she obviously had become emotionally attached to you, so much that perhaps she was considering renouncing her vows and perhaps developing a romantic relationship with you. If anyone was trying to prevent this romance from happening, they were doing it because they wanted the lady to continue to be true to her monastic vows, not because they were jealous.

You may very well have known this nun in a previous lifetime. If so, she may have unconsciousnly recognized you in this life, which may explain why she had become romantically infatuated with you. You said,

"She was hugging me, snuggling into me and crying because she had missed me so much. Definitely not Platonic."

--> Definitely breaking the vows of a Buddhist nun. Buddhist nuns are not allowed to touch a man, live in the same building with a man, etc.

"How do you invite a girl for a meal who doesn't eat after midday?"

--> You either do or you don't. You either invite her out and pursue her romantically in clear violation of her monastic vows, or you respect her monastic vows and do not invite her out for anything at all. (The lady was obviously having trouble sticking to her monastic vows. The question is, how should you have handled it?)

"... being reborn as a person who has no recollection of previous lives..."

--> There are people who have partial or complete recollection of previous lives (which tells me that people have a 'soul').

"I apologize if these personal details are not appropriate for this forum..."

--> I have a lot of experience dealing with painful emotional attachments. Feel feel to ask any questions on this topic.
 
intrepidlover said:
I apologize if these personal details are not appropriate for this forum, but I felt the need to challenge your negation of an element of jealousy.
Click to expand...

Well without getting embroiled in personal details…If she was a nun then I would not think it appropriate for her to stay “under the same roof as a man” as you say. Do you? Are there any religious orders, non-Buddhist or Buddhist, where this would be permissible? If she behaved like this (“planning to stay with you” and being “definitely not Platonic”) then she has possibly made a mistake in taking up the robes.

s.
 
Snoopy said:
Well without getting embroiled in personal details…If she was a nun then I would not think it appropriate for her to stay “under the same roof as a man” as you say. Do you? Are there any religious orders, non-Buddhist or Buddhist, where this would be permissible? If she behaved like this (“planning to stay with you” and being “definitely not Platonic”) then she has possibly made a mistake in taking up the robes.

s.
Click to expand...
I had a friend who went to Thailand, and became a fully accredited Buddhist monk in a non-celibate order. So he returned to Australia with an orange robe and a girl on his arm.

I have a friend in Brisbane, Australia, who is a shaolin monk, having studied under one of the monks who escorted the Dali Lama to safety when he was finally persuaded to leave Tibet. My friend is married with two children.

As for my Chinese friend Xing Yuan, she abandoned the idea of a friendship with me and has not tried to contact me for a very long time.
 
Originally Posted by OAT Buddhism teaches that there is a process of transmigration from one existence (or life) to another existence (or life), but there is no unchanging individual (or soul). This is consistent with the teaching on impermanence - that a thing changes from moment to moment. So each individual is a stream of its changing aggregates
Click to expand...

From what I know myself, Oat, you have described correctly what Buddhism says about the nature of the soul.

In contrast, most Hindu schools of philosophy conclude that the soul is eternally individual ---but at this point in the discussion this would be splitting hairs.

But, my granddad & uncle were barbers.

The duality [of Ying-Yang] states that there is
a] Something-ness
b] Nothing-ness
and both exist together.

If a soul can merge or dessolve into the cosmic background ---why does not material matter & energy particles exhibit this ability.

The Physic "Law of Conservation" says the energy inputed will be equal the energy outputed thus a conversion occurs . . . yet no loss occurs.

The water passes through & spins the water wheel . . . yet both mechanisms remain intack and continue to do their jobs.

Matter & Energy act un-abated before & after we come into being. The Field of these activities of matter & energy are apparently un-scathed by all the souls passing through.

Where are these Souls ultimately seeking to arrive at?

Something-ness & Nothing-ness will never leave eachother's sides ---why would the soul evaporate from the scene? Where would it's refuge be? Back in its womb-origin?

Why would duality give rise to an enitity that would rise above its two polarities and thus transcend duality itself?
 
bhaktajan said:
The duality [of Ying-Yang] states that there is
a] Something-ness
b] Nothing-ness
and both exist together.
Click to expand...
I used Yin-Yang notion to come to the (temporary) conclusion that both law and chaos (chance) function concurrently throughout the universe.

Does this idea make sense to you?

As for the rest of your post, I can't understand it.
 
law and chaos (chance) function concurrently throughout the universe
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree. Order and disorder function concurrently.

Ying and yang function concurrently.

Both will never dissappear.

That which provides the life-force [to cause the one and only "Ying and Yang" to do their thing] also never disappears.

The soul's preceptive conscious faculties can see the Duality of existence ---the soul's consciousness [of living a life] in a material world is above the mechnical Ying and Yang ---this is absolute.

Consciousness is absolute.
Ying and Yang are relative.
All Three exist at the same time and Place.

The Consciousness soul must seek out the absolute.
Versus
The Consciousness soul typically seeks out sensual pleasure(s) in the world of Ying and Yang.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
allowed to touch a man, live in the same building with a man, etc.

"How do you invite a girl for a meal who doesn't eat after midday?"

--> You either do or you don't. You either invite her out and pursue her romantically in clear violation of her monastic vows, or you respect her monastic vows and do not invite her out for anything at all. (The lady was obviously having trouble sticking to her monastic vows. The question is, how should you have handled it?)
Click to expand...
I had no idea of her monastic vows. Why would I unless I was schooled in Buddhism which I was not. The fact is she was free to visit me as often as she wished until the married Buddhist woman she was boarding with, stopped replying to (translating) my emails.

I had no way of contacting her except by email because on the various occasions I drove her home, she would get out of the car without indicating in which house she was staying. All she said was that she was not allowed to have visitors.

I had no idea why the emails were not replied to until Xing Yuan telephoned me just before returning to China. She wanted to stay with me during the week prior to her departure. She was a mischievous little monkey. She hopped onto the bed in the spare room, sat lotus position and said: "I will sleep here." I think the reason I was against that was that she would have worn me out as she was always hopping from one place or activity to another.
Nick the Pilot said:
"... being reborn as a person who has no recollection of previous lives..."

--> There are people who have partial or complete recollection of previous lives (which tells me that people have a 'soul').
Click to expand...
I also believe in a soul but this is apparently not a popular viewpoint in this particular forum.
Nick the Pilot said:
"I apologize if these personal details are not appropriate for this forum..."
--> I have a lot of experience dealing with painful emotional attachments. Feel feel to ask any questions on this topic.
Click to expand...
Thanks but this particular emotional attachment has long since left me and also I gather left the girl as it is quite some time since she last emailed me.
 
Where are these Souls ultimately seeking to arrive at?
Click to expand...

There are two schools of Hindu thought:

1] Impersonal merging of the soul into the Great-Spirit [aka, the soul returns to source; aka, the soul, which is particle of 'Brahman' re-merges back into an Param-Brahman (Super-Spirit)]

---This requires self-realisation/recognition of the soul's nature and it's endless allure allure to temporary material enjoyments, repeated lifetime after lifetime as per one's own work and intelligence.

2] Personally returning (in a spiritual Body) to God's Transcendent Realm outside the material Cosmos, to engage in pastimes face to face with God's personage & entourage in Heaven.

---This requires self-realisation/recognition of the soul's nature and it's endless allure to temporary material enjoyments, repeated lifetime after lifetime as per one's own work and intelligence + the benedictional grace of direct revelation by a bonefide spiritual master (Guru) as to how to extract ones soul from the material Cosmos [reference the Bhagavad-gita where God speaks directly to this point aka bhakti-yoga].

I also believe in a soul but this is apparently not a popular viewpoint in this particular forum.
Click to expand...

Oat had written correctly. The orthodox Buddhist conclusion as to the nature of the soul (atman) is that it too can be dessolved "to merge back into cosmic-Consciousness' so as to escape the Re-birth cycle that the soul constantly experiences (to escape the cycle of 'amsara' one must reliquish the grip of the Soul's Ego/Desire/material identification ---that state of "Liberation" is called "Nirvana" [lit., without (nir)-qualities (vana)].
 
the benedictional grace of direct revelation by a bonefide representative
Click to expand...

This is the case with all concerns!
Plumbing Problem? Call a licensed Plumber.
Automotive Problem? Call a licensed Automotive Mechanic.
Court of Law Problem? Call a licensed Solicitor-Lawyer.
Aircraft Travel Problem? Call a licensed Aviator.
Trans-Atlantic Travel Problem? Call a licensed Maritine Ship Captain.
House on Fire Problem? Call a licensed Fire-Fighter.

In all cases, an authorised Authentic Bonefide representative will apprise their clients of ABSOLUTE Benefit(s).

Absolute Truth can only be had by those representatives that are in the bonefide disciplic line of a trade or profession.

We have faith that all the Names Listed in the Yellow Pages are of bonefide reps that have absolute knowledge of their expertise ---such knowledge is always 'passed-down' person to person ---that is how Bonefide & Absolutely true knowledge is conveyed.

............................................
The soul takes birth after birth until bonefide Absolute Knowledge is obtained and pursued.
 
Originally Posted by intrepidlover
I also believe in a soul but this is apparently not a popular viewpoint in this particular forum.
Click to expand...


Originally Posted by Snoppy
More or less zero :)

s.
Click to expand...


Snoppy,
Is this fair for me to say?:
a] There is a concept of Soul in Buddhism ---The constituent nature/definition of which is VERY SIMILAR from other Schools of thought [ie Hindu],
But,
b] the Buddhist conclusion as to what constitutes Moksha [liberation/Salvation] differs from other Schools of thought [ie Hindu]
and yet,
c] while a person is alive, almost everyone agrees with the same definition of Soul.

atman buddhism - the definition of atman in buddhism
 
If you're talking about a eternal unchanging soul, then Buddhists don't believe in that. Hindus generally believe in atman whereas Buddhists believe in anatman.
 
you're talking about a eternal unchanging soul, then Buddhists don't believe in that. Hindus generally believe in atman whereas Buddhists believe in anatman
Click to expand...

Thank you Z, I understand. So, with your definition in mind I ask this question again:

My question is:
During a person's living life time, the definition of soul is the same, for all practical & intended purposes, for Buddhist & Hindu ---The differences, in technical definition, between Buddhist & Hindu doctrine is relevent only upon death.

The difference is: the destination of an Enlightened Soul. No?
Because the final destination and Goal of the soul is different between Buddhist & Hindu.

But during life self-realisation of the Blissfull nature of the soul is the same and the method of experiencing that bliss is the same: Meditation. No?

IOW, The SIMILAR destination of an UN-Enlightened Soul is commomly known, and is indeed the very same for any school of thought. No?

IOW, Different schools of philosophy differ on the nature of the soul specifications and Final Goal, yet, all agree, irregardless of the final destination, that in the mean time during while alive, all souls are repeatedly taking re-births due to ego-attachments, until liberation is sought.

It's like asking "What will you do with your remaining wealth when you die?" Some will give it to relatives, some to charities, some to friends etc ---yet while alive, the Status Quo of wealth is the same for all denominations of Working beings everywhere:
Work & Earn, pay Taxes & Die. ---[an Absolute maxim of Life, No?]
 
bhaktajan said:
The orthodox Buddhist conclusion as to the nature of the soul (atman) is that it too can be dessolved "to merge back into cosmic-Consciousness' so as to escape the Re-birth cycle that the soul constantly experiences (to escape the cycle of 'amsara' one must reliquish the grip of the Soul's Ego/Desire/material identification ---that state of "Liberation" is called "Nirvana" [lit., without (nir)-qualities (vana)].
Click to expand...
This is not the orthodox Buddhist conclusion. The orthodox Buddhist conclusion is to remain silent as nirvana/enlightenment is not accessible via language. It is very clear in both the Pali suttas and the Mahayana sutras that words like existent, not existent, both existent and non-existent, neither existent nor not non-existent do not apply. Even words like dual or non-dual, one or many do not apply.
 
Snoopy said:
I can only reiterate that according to the rules of behaviour for monks and nuns created by the Buddha any such behaviour is explicitly barred. The rules are many and detailed...

Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha: The Bhikkhus' Code of Discipline

s.
Click to expand...
Before posting a link, you should read what it says. These rules are obviously addressed only to male monks. There is no mention of nuns at all.

So perhaps you would like to tell me when females were first admitted to these orders.

I have another question. As impermanence is so strongly stressed in Buddhism, why should permanence be attributed to rules set out by the Buddha 2,500 years ago?

I also wonder if (like the Levitical laws in the Bible) many of these rules would not be required to be observed in the 21st century.
 
I agree that "The orthodox Buddhist conclusion as to the nature of the soul (atman)..." does not agree with Buddhism. Buddhists do not believe in the existence of the atman/soul.
 
intrepidlover said:
Before posting a link, you should read what it says.

These rules are obviously addressed only to male monks. There is no mention of nuns at all.
Click to expand...

There are additional rules for nuns (311 as against 227). I’d post a link but it might not pass muster. :eek:

So perhaps you would like to tell me when females were first admitted to these orders.
Click to expand...

During the Buddha’s lifetime.


I have another question. As impermanence is so strongly stressed in Buddhism, why should permanence be attributed to rules set out by the Buddha 2,500 years ago?
Click to expand...

2,500 years is not permanence. Mount Everest is not permanent.

I also wonder if (like the Levitical laws in the Bible) many of these rules would not be required to be observed in the 21st century
Click to expand...

Well wonder away. Apparently, they are required - for this remaining extant order (the Theravada).


s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top