Other questions on reincarnation

Snoopy said:
There are additional rules for nuns (311 as against 227). I’d post a link but it might not pass muster. :eek:
During the Buddha’s lifetime.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I did my own research but couldn't find how to edit my post.

Women and the Buddha -- what the Buddha taught about women

Buddhism and Women -- Is Buddhism a Sexist Religion?

Snoopy said:
Well wonder away. Apparently, they are required - for this remaining extant order (the Theravada).
s.
Click to expand...
What does "apparently required" mean? Required by who? For what purpose?

I am puzzled that Gautama should set out such a complex set of rules when he himself had rejected the ascetic life of the Hindus and returned to eating normal food and so forth.

I cannot see how such a complex set of rules would lead to liberation. Rather they would lead to bondage, with the monks and nuns having to refer to the rule book to see if they were allowed to sneeze or break wind.

My Shaolin friend has not told me about his training, other than that he was under the tutelage of a Shaolin monk from the age of three. I daresay he never saw the inside of a monastery. But he is the epitome of everything that Buddhism stands for. He is humble, always cheerful despite suffering severe chronic pain due to spina bifeda. He is a high achiever with three PhDs and one of the top IT pros in the world. I don't know if this has any bearing on his Buddhist training.

Apparently he knows his kung fu because he is called on to act as bodyguard for the Dalai Lama when he visits Queensland.

I have met personally two Buddhist monks and one Buddhist nun. They did not impress me favourably. However I have been very impressed by the two practicing Buddhists (lay persons) I know. I was impressed by a Tibetan lama who gave a lecture which I attended. He answered most questions with "find out for yourself."

My deduction, whether accurate or not, is that the monastic life leads to the kind of pharisaic attitude which Jesus condemned so strongly -- living by the letter of the law. With all its faults, at least Christianity emphasizes love. I do not find this in Buddhism but stand to be corrected.
 
Nick, Intrepid, perhaps you should find out for yourself what the Buddha himself actually said.
 
OAT said:
Nick, Intrepid, perhaps you should find out for yourself what the Buddha himself actually said.
Click to expand...
I have a number of general books on Buddhism but have ordered a CD-ROM which appears to be quite comprehensive.

It is called; "[SIZE=-1]"The Teaching of Buddha"
recommended by Society for the Promotion of Buddhism[/SIZE]
 
Zenda71 Post 34:
Re: eternal unchanging soul, then Buddhists don't believe in that.
Hindus believe in atman
whereas
Buddhists believe in anatman.

Soul(atma)-realisation, aka, self-realisation is “enlightenment to the soul it self as the center of consciousness”.

Are you saying that the Buddhist novice has no soul and meditates to realize the soul he hasn’t got/never had?
Buddhist enlightenment is realization that one never had a soul to begin with?

The prefix ‘an’ used above with the root word atma indicates ‘Not-Soul’ or ‘Non-Soul’.

For the novice the goal of Atma-realisation and/or Anatma-realisation is achieved by a the accomplished student after time has passed --- Atma-realisation and/or Anatma-realisation is the GOAL. [please correct me if this is wrong] ---this is what I was asking in post 34:


Bhaktajan Post 34: My question is:
During a life time

“_______” (soul-stuff) is the same for Buddhist & Hindu ---except for the technical definition which is only relevant upon death and /or enlightenment.

The difference of Atma-realisation versus Anatma-realisation is: the destination of an Enlightened “_______” (aka, soul-stuff). No?

Because the “final destination” or, the Goal, of the “soul-stuff” is what that demarcates Buddhist from Hindu.

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?


Oat Post 36: 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.

We negate the phantasmagoria of the ten thousand things as they rise and fall, and then negate the process of negating.

Post 36 reminds me of the aphorism #1 of Tao te ching,
“. . . the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao . . . Darkness within Darkness . . . ”

Nick the Pilot Post 38: Buddhists do not believe in the existence of the atman/soul.

But are you referring to the enlightened Vision of the accomplished Buddhist adherent?

I mean to say that the center of consciousness in each sentient being is a assigned theirown vector point address in the cosmos and after enlightenment the Atma achieves An-atma status?

Otherwise the sentient beings that are ensnared in the cycle of samsara continue to maintain their ATMA (?) status until the dharma is constientiously practiced so as to realize their conscious essence to be An-Atma.

Please advise.
 
"…are you referring to the enlightened Vision of the accomplished Buddhist adherent?"

--> No, modern Buddhists say that all people lack a soul/Atman, not just Buddhist adherents.

"…after enlightenment the Atma achieves An-atma status?"

--> No, modern Buddhists say it is not a matter of having an Atman and then ‘achieving An-atma status,’ modern Buddhists say people never have an Atman to begin with.

"…the sentient beings that are ensnared in the cycle of samsara continue to maintain their ATMA (?) status until the dharma is constientiously practiced so as to realize their conscious essence to be An-Atma."

--> No, modern Buddhists say that people do not have an Atman that can be ensnared by samsara.


~~~

A key difference between today's Hindus and Buddhists is that Hindus believe in a soul/Atman and Buddhists do not. (It is this non-belief in a soul/Atman that prevented me from calling myself a Buddhist for many years. I now believe that Buddha did believe in and teach of a soul/Atman, so I have happily begun to call myself a Buddhist again, after many years.) I believe that the modern Buddhist teaching on the soul/Atman has been altered from what Buddha actually taught.
 
Oh Venerable Nick,
Very enlightening accessment.

Elsewhere I found this quote:

I've seen someone use Richard Dawkins' methodology to prove that Richard Dawkins doesn't exist!

Thomas
Click to expand...


So similarly:
"I've seen someone use Buddhists methodology to prove that Buddhists don't exist!"

But what is passing on into the next birth?
What is taking birth after birth in the cycle of samsara?
What has stayed-on, so as to be a 'Bodhisattva'?
As electricity passes through wires and thus the energy "becomes One with the wire" ---Yet human consciousness is limited to Openings it peeks out of and never "becomes One with the wire" ---the energy of Human life is: "consciousness seeking conversion to eternality.
 
"becomes One with the wire"

--> Buddhists would say that the electricity first had to become aware of it's NOT being one with the wire in order to achieve its own self-awareness, but it is now ready to reestablish its oneness with the wire, a duality that was nothing but an illusion to begin with.

Genesis teaches the same lesson, but does so by using quite different terminology.
 
bhaktajan said:
But what is passing on into the next birth?
What is taking birth after birth in the cycle of samsara?
What has stayed-on, so as to be a 'Bodhisattva'?
Click to expand...

I think Nick has summed things up pretty well.

My understanding of what passes on is the results or effects of actions, thoughts, aspirations, etc. Even genetic code could be seen as a type of rebirth, I think. (For better info, contact a well-trained teacher, who will definitely have much more knowledge and realization I do!) A Bodhisattva usually makes many specific aspirations to help sentient beings... sometimes in a very specific way such as being born as a tree or a dog or whatever... and I think that the power of this aspiration is what allows "them" to take rebirth in a particular way that is helpful.

If you believe that things are interdependent, then it isn't such a stretch to think this way. The "things" that appear do so because of causes and conditions and when those causes and conditions interact, there is a result. I may be being a tad reductionistic here because it's said that it is a complex process that can only be fully understood by sublime beings...
 
Nick the Pilot said "Buddhists don't believe in soul". I think it depends on the school of Buddhism. Par exemple, in Tibetan Buddhism they believe in something to reincarnate... And now he repeats that:

>"No, modern Buddhists say that all people lack a soul/Atman, not just Buddhist adherents."

What is reincarnating then?
 
"...in Tibetan Buddhism they believe in something to reincarnate..."

--> What do they call it?

"What is reincarnating then?"

--> (The correct question is, "What is being reborn then?") I don't know how a 'mainstream' Buddhist would answer this question -- perhaps one of our 'mainstream' Buddhists can answer this for us.
 
>What do they call it?

Some Tibetan name I suppose :) . I think it may be called the term "Atma", something eternal, unlike the temporary "personality" being illusive and non-existing in reality. The "personality" is only a fluctuation, disturbance in the eternal flow of the consciousness.

>perhaps one of our 'mainstream' Buddhists can answer this for us

Who belongs to this curious Buddhist school here, Nick? Maybe we'd better ask someone of them personally? :)
 
I don't know how a 'mainstream' Buddhist would answer this question
Click to expand...

What does scripture say?
Inventing an answer is the same as stating falsewitness.

What is reincarnating then?
Click to expand...
If, theoretically, All matter & energy & All space and time is capture and held in the palms of one's hands ---we can say that ALL IS ONE.

This ALL IS ONE is an absolute.

This absolute would hold all possibilities. It would be the absolute Truth.

The Absolute truth stands in contrast to in-absolute transiency.

NO TWO bits or specks of anything can occupy the same time and place at the same time ---this is an absolute law of nature. If we could spread a grid over the entire cosmos ---we will see that each and every point of existence is individual & seperate from each other & occupy a bit of space all its own.

All is false because all is transitory ---but all is actually transpiring during a passage Real time. The falsity is that the state of existance is transitory and made of in-absolute matter & energy that is stagnant until a conscious overseer passes by.

When a conscious overseer passes by, time is seen to flee and when a conscious overseer passes from living body it appears that there is no more "time" for the dead body to live ---yet time and life continue.

Consciousness is above Time, death, space and transitory forms ---yet, birth in a body allows the life-force to interact with matter, while the time affords its panoramic vision to tickle itself.
 
not "reincarnation" ---but "rebirth"
Click to expand...

Yes. Re-birth.

Of course, re-incarnation implys by it's very spelling that Tom, Dick & Harry & John Smith DO NOT re-appear in future lives replete with their foot-gout and bank balance and maybe their pet dogs too ----that would be perposterous, and is not supported anywhere*. There is no remnants of a past birth except the "Pin-number" and a service record ---yet a re-born "Pin-number" has no claim nor recollection nor desire to claim proprietorship over anything ---its a new birth, so all of life's lessons starts all over again.


I know of no treatise that claims a common soul regians their past identity.

The questions is "What is being reborn then?"

The name-proper is not important ---what is important is that there is an individual being that stays individual even after death, that is reborn, to start life's lessons afresh--- the next question is "Why re-births?" "Is there an absolute Common purpose?" "Is there an underlying logic that applies across the board for all the other species of sentient beings?" "Is this field of samsara a self-manifested no-where-ness, or, is it an absolute stepping stone to nir-samsara?"

*The exception is an Avatar of God. God could 're-incarnate' if he so desired.
 
eternal unchanging soul, then Buddhists don't believe in that.
Hindus believe in atman
whereas
Buddhists believe in anatman.
Click to expand...
"eternal unchanging soul ---Buddhists don't believe in that." ---this is wrong!
Nirvana itself is eternal & unchanging and the Soul is striving to re-merge in that primal origin state ~ergo, the 'an-atman' state of (non-) existance.

"eternal unchanging EGO-SELF ---Buddhists don't believe in that." ---this is CORRECT!

"eternal unchanging SPIRIT-SELF in service to Godhead" ---is what Hindus do believe in ---after escaping from samsara.
 
>>not "reincarnation" ---but "rebirth"
>Yes. Re-birth.

Could you explain the difference? I thought re-birth is the second birth of the same personality. Reincarnation is re-birth of the same Atman.
 
Christians, Hindus, etc., believe in a soul/Atman. Hindus, etc., believe it is the Atman which reincarnates. Buddhists do not believe in a soul/Atman, nor do they believe that a soul/Atman reincarnates. Buddhists use the word rebirth to disitinguish their belief from that of Hindus, etc.

The soul/Atman is not the same thing as the personality (although some Christians may disagree with this).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top