Karma - who/what is the judge?

Snoopy said:
Post 2 and 19 :)
Click to expand...

OK, understood. You believe in a form of rebirth, moment by moment of the universe; perhaps rebirth as a metaphor, but not so-called "literal rebirth."

I was reading on the internet that many that study Buddhism in the West do not believe in literal rebirth; whereas many that study in the East do.

Has that been your personal experience with "Western" Buddhists that you know? That they reject the idea of a literal rebirth?

Do you think there is a component of "faith" that is needed for one to believe in literal rebirth? i.e. is it easier for those in the East vs. those in the West since it's such a common cultural concept; and they were raised believing it all along, like little kids in the West believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy (or like my 5-year-old Christian nephew believes in Jesus/heaven/hell)? Therefore Easterners, since it's a cultural norm for them, can more easily accept literal rebirth as an unconjecturable or on "faith", without all the unanswered questions that us Westerners raise?

Why do you think so many Buddhists in the East believe in so-called literal rebirth? Do you think that's the way Buddha meant to teach rebirth, i.e. not as metaphor but to be taken literally? Buddha spoke of having many past lives himself, that seems like so-called literal rebirth to me?
 
IG,

It is more a question of which Buddhist tradition a person belongs to, rather than which country they live in. Tibetan Buddhism teaches literal rebirth, whereas several Japanese Buddhist traditions do not. And knowing numbers of members is not going to help -- millions of Japanese Buddhists do not believe in literal rebirth.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
IG,

It is more a question of which Buddhist tradition a person belongs to, rather than which country they live in. Tibetan Buddhism teaches literal rebirth, whereas several Japanese Buddhist traditions do not. And knowing numbers of members is going to help -- millions of Japanese Buddhists do not believe in literal rebirth.
Click to expand...

How is number of members going to help? Even if the whole world accepts a certain thing, it could still be wrong.
 
I concur with Nick. The Dharma has changed as it moved around thw world. The Buddha taught liberation by not clinging to views. Is there a self? Or is there not-self? Buddha taught both, depending on the views of his audience. Buddhism is not a single monolithic dogma, it is an evolving project. Your Fourteenth Dalai Lama has said, for instance, that where Buddhism does not concur with the findings of science, then Buddhism must change. A point I agree with!
 
IG,

I wanted to add a little more about the different Buddhist traditions in the west. Here are the ones I believe to be the most popular ones in the west, and whether they teach literal rebirth:

Tibetan - yes
Zen - no
Pureland - no
Nichiren - I'm not sure, but probably no

(There are also a number of Theravada Buddhists in the west, but I think their numbers are rather small.)

I think Pureland is the most common Buddhist tradition in the world, but not the most common Buddhist tradition in the west.

Nichiren is important, because it is the only one in the west which actively recruits non-Asian members. Perhaps the best-known Nichiren Buddhist today is Shaquille O'Neal.

~~~

A Buddhist's tendency to believe or not believe in literal rebirth depends mostly on which tradition they belong to.
 
Thanks everyone for the input on this thread, this discussion has been very insightful for me!
 
@IG
Just to set Nick's post in context:

Buddhism can be most broadly categorised into two major branches, the Theravada and the Mahayana. Sometimes Vajrayana is considered a third branch, sometimes it is considered part of the Mahayana. 

Put simply, the Theravada uses solely the Pali Canon (as per ATI), it being the accepted 'Word of the Buddha'. The Mahayana is a disparate, eclectic catch-all term for all other schools that use post-Buddha texts. 

Hence all the differences!
 
The most important thing for me about Buddha is his last words: "Be a light unto yourself". With so much divergence, I find it difficult to believe the Dharma is still remembered correctly. Buddhists are just like any other tradition, they have become too much dogmatic after the master has departed. Today, Buddhism is rather a mess if you try to understand it in its entirety... worse yet, the attainment of Buddha is so simplistic, but the resulting tradition is perhaps the most complicated there is.

This is why I do not identify with any tradition, after the master has left the followers can decide whatsoever they wish and despite meaning well it is never true to the master because the followers have not reached the heights of the master. All should become masters of themselves, their own light, do not take the words of another as anything more than a guide, a map to where they have ventured so you might also find that place. Only through your experience of that place can you confirm what they have said, otherwise it is all just opinion, acquired knowledge - utterly useless.

Even in the Theravada tradition, you cannot prove it explains the views of Buddha - for one thing Buddha has said all views are wrong. All you can say is that it contains the oldest writings about Buddha, but it has been collected after Buddha has passed as well. It is collected from the memories of followers, and trusted as authentic. Buddha has essentially attempted to show all that what they believe is wrong because it is not their experience, then his followers began a tradition of beliefs - it is a great injustice to Buddha.

Buddha should be remembered as a teacher of meditation, and for his greatest insight: the middle way. Everything else is hog wash. Even here, it is not complete, you have to bring Krishna or something similar in because Buddha has said both extremes are false but this will lead to a depressing life. Krishna has taught about being total, accepting all that existence provides. Know that it is false, but still dance with existence - deny nothing, become whole.

This is why I love Osho so much, he has taught a total synthesis rather than a denial of everything. There is much controversy around this man, but if you read his words you will find great insight. He has said he is not a messenger or avatar or prophet - just a friend, helping all true seekers.
 
One of the biggest differences betweeen Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism is the Bodhisattva vow (the promise to postpone a person's own entry into nirvana, and remain on earth to help all others achieve enlightenment).

To me, the Bodhisattva vow is one of the biggest arguments for the idea that literal rebirth actually happens. Surprisingly, the Bodhisattva vow is more often a part of Mahayana than Theravada, whereas Mahayana is more likely to say that literal birth does not happen.
 
Something I'm not able to understand:

If the Buddha himself remembered past lives (literal rebirth), and taught rebirth as a core Buddhist principle, why do some Buddhist traditions not believe in literal rebirth?

After all, their main teacher himself experienced it; and they follow his teachings yet interpret rebirth to mean something other than so-called literal rebirth?

This doesn't make sense to my Western brain :confused:

To me it almost seems like some sort of work-around. They like the Buddha's teachings. They realize rebirth is a core teaching of his and that he himself experieced rebirth in past lives. They can't wrap their minds around literal rebirth so choose to interpret rebirth differently than Buddha himself...

It would be like a Christian not believing Jesus rose from the dead, even though he said himself that he did.

Or am I missing something here?
 
IowaGuy said:
Something I'm not able to understand:

If the Buddha himself remembered past lives (literal rebirth), and taught rebirth as a core Buddhist principle, why do some Buddhist traditions not believe in literal rebirth?

After all, their main teacher himself experienced it; and they follow his teachings yet interpret rebirth to mean something other than so-called literal rebirth?

This doesn't make sense to my Western brain :confused:

To me it almost seems like some sort of work-around. They like the Buddha's teachings. They realize rebirth is a core teaching of his and that he himself experieced rebirth in past lives. They can't wrap their minds around literal rebirth so choose to interpret rebirth differently than Buddha himself...

It would be like a Christian not believing Jesus rose from the dead, even though he said himself that he did.

Or am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

Buddha has said to be a light unto yourself, and also that you should not accept anything - even his own words - without personal confirmation. The problem is that people have accepted others words over Buddha's in the Buddhist tradition, they have concluded that others statements are more correct but then people have accepted this above Buddha.

It is also the case that different Buddhist branches have brought in much from other local religions. Tibetan Buddhism, for instance, is heavily influenced by a local tradition called "Bon". In China, it is heavily influenced by Taoism and in Japan Shinto comes into it. It becomes very confusing because in the East there is no real concept of a set religion, they all start blending into each other and each practitioner might base their practice on many traditions. Even in the West though, there are groups like Open Buddhism which try to apply many traditions to their form of Buddhism.

For me, this is perfectly good, but there needs to be a certain direction to what you accept - they just pick and choose based on what they like it seems.
 
Good question, IG! Similarly, why don't all Christians believe the literal truth of every book in the Bible? Buddhist teachings have indeed changed as they moved around the globe. 

The Buddha was born into a culture where considering life (and the universe) to be cyclical was common. Perhaps this is why he believed it? Or perhaps he taught it simply because his audience did?

If you expect all schools to be identical you will remain confused; if there were no differences there would be only the one 'branch' or vehicle. 

I thought it best to restrict my references to ATI to avoid you getting confused!

However! There is a Zen saying 'Old man Shakyamuni, is only halfway there.'

Nothing holy!
 
Snoopy said:
Good question, IG! Similarly, why don't all Christians believe the literal truth of every book in the Bible? Buddhist teachings have indeed changed as they moved around the globe. 

The Buddha was born into a culture where considering life (and the universe) to be cyclical was common. Perhaps this is why he believed it? Or perhaps he taught it simply because his audience did?

If you expect all schools to be identical you will remain confused; if there were no differences there would be only the one 'branch' or vehicle. 

I thought it best to restrict my references to ATI to avoid you getting confused!

However! There is a Zen saying 'Old man Shakyamuni, is only halfway there.'

Nothing holy!
Click to expand...

Shakyamuni is of course Buddha...

This is what I have described earlier in the thread: Buddha has dropped everything, he no longer clinging to everything. In this lack of clinging the ultimate has entered him, this is his awakening.

What is missing from Buddha is totality from this new awareness, it not taught to the Buddhists so they tend to be very somber and depressed people. They have generally not began to rejoice with the whole, they have not yet learned to celebrate - it is only compassion, for all will die, it is still obsessed with death, that is their motivator. For me, the Buddhist is as dead, they are like a zombie because they do not learn how to come out the other side, it is inevitable when you are so obsessed with death going in... this is why the Zen tradition is so beautiful, it is more complete.

I have said Krishna is another useful device for coming out the other side, but Lao Tzu is just as valid and Zen is the result of Lao Tzu and Buddha becoming synthesized. Both Krishna and Lao Tzu are completely in celebration of the ultimate, neither are denying anything, they simply have dropped their clinging to this or that. They act through their awareness, but it is not a situation of choosing what the best action might be - the Gita is very valuable here, for something seemingly utterly wrong is reasoned as simply accepting what has become the reality: you must fight because war is happening, if you do not you will die. His reasoning to Arjuna is out of his awareness while Arjuna is more of a traditional religious man - most will look and reason that Arjuna is the more saintly of the two.

For me, Krishna and Buddha are seemingly more opposite, so together they can present a better whole. Lao Tzu is in complete celebration, but he does not show how to be in the world - he is still out of the world, living in isolation. No tradition has created complete humans with any sort of consistency, but together it can happen I believe - it has happened for me, why not others?
 
Again, this calls me to point at Osho - he presents a totality, a complete synthesis built on top of the existing traditions.

In each case, he has talked for and against the traditions of the past - never the men, only the teachings... repeatedly he shows that you should learn from all but cling to none. This is a totality, reject nothing but cling to nothing as well. Every past religion has missed something, maybe not in the founder but in the resulting tradition always something has been missed. Osho has tried to show how they all point to the same thing, how each can take you to the ultimate but the clinging to them is the problem. He teaches much as Buddha did: be a light unto yourself, others words can only show the way, they cannot take you there.

If you try to work out what all are pointing to, how all are related, you are more likely to arrive. This is the beauty of Osho, and for me none has provided greater insight than this man. He has guided us towards where the synthesis can sprout from, now there is no more need to cling. He has seen where each has gone wrong, he has seen why each is at odds and he has shown how they can come back together - beautiful.

The most beautiful thing is that he doesn't belittle humans, he doesn't say he is something better or that you are to be sheep or controlled. You are to be your own master, but one that has already arrived can be an assistance for you. He has seen this as the greatest obstacle so far, that always there is too much emphasis on training like a dog - this isn't how authenticity flowers. If you are subordinate, you will not think you can be an equal so you will simply follow blindly. You will cling because you identify so much of yourself with the master, you will place him on an impossible perch and decide to worship him. The very thing creating the worshiping is the roadblock, it is a love for other rather than realizing their is no distinction.
 
Lunitik said:
Buddha has said to be a light unto yourself, and also that you should not accept anything - even his own words - without personal confirmation.....For me, this is perfectly good, but there needs to be a certain direction to what you accept - they just pick and choose based on what they like it seems.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, even the Buddha's words should not always be taken at face value. This is part of my struggle with the concept of so-called literal rebirth. I have no evidence/confirmation of it and it goes against everything I have learned in this world. Yet it is a core concept to many on this planet, whether the Hindu version of a soul shedding bodies like clothes, or the Buddhist version, or others in-between.

I personally want to explore the concept to be sure that I'm not rejecting it just because it seems foreign to me since I was born in the West.
 
Snoopy said:
Good question, IG! Similarly, why don't all Christians believe the literal truth of every book in the Bible? Buddhist teachings have indeed changed as they moved around the globe.

The Buddha was born into a culture where considering life (and the universe) to be cyclical was common. Perhaps this is why he believed it? Or perhaps he taught it simply because his audience did?

Nothing holy!
Click to expand...

These are good points. Indeed, many of these same cultural considerations need to be taken into account with the Abrahamic religions. I will have to ponder the "teaching to his audience" angle. After all, I do the same when speaking in public...
 
When love is objectified, it can never be beautiful, this is why there is so much hatred between the faiths. When love is subjectified, again there is a problem, ego becomes more and more pronounced. To confirm this type of love, you go on hating everything else...

Always, we create these boundaries, then we cling to a particular segment... this is caused by language which has shaped mind. Ego arises out of these conclusions of mind "I am better" or "I have chosen correctly", but could this even be feasible if there was no language at all? Is language an entity? If it has gone on shaping how you perceive things, yet it is not a real thing itself, it can be nothing but an illusion. You cannot say this is this, or that is that because this is language. We all know what "tree" is, but this word is not a thing, it merely brings to mind a particular thing.

Kensho or Satori is exactly the removal of boundaries, an experience without mind coming in. It is called emptiness because there is no projection, it simply is... yet it is called the ultimate as well because nothing is missing. Again, the problem is language, mind, because it doesn't permit a true expression of it that can be reliably understood...

Have you ever pondered why before a certain age there are no memories at all? It is because of exactly this: mind has not developed yet, you are still not familiar enough with language. Language is necessary to record and recall an event but you are still pure, unsullied by such inventions...
 
IowaGuy said:
Yes, I agree, even the Buddha's words should not always be taken at face value. This is part of my struggle with the concept of so-called literal rebirth. I have no evidence/confirmation of it and it goes against everything I have learned in this world. Yet it is a core concept to many on this planet, whether the Hindu version of a soul shedding bodies like clothes, or the Buddhist version, or others in-between.

I personally want to explore the concept to be sure that I'm not rejecting it just because it seems foreign to me since I was born in the West.
Click to expand...

If you cannot confirm a thing, simply do not give it any mind - if you must conceive of it, simply view it as a device: what is being conveyed by bringing in this concept?

Remember that the concept of nirvana is the escape from reincarnation, it is the dropping of concepts of God and soul, and the burning of accumulated karma. This is important, Buddha is essentially saying that if you can awaken you will see this is all foolishness. You cannot understand a Buddha through mind, but he was attempt to convey to your mind a context for creating his experience in you.

Buddha's audience was predominantly Hindu - he is basically saying Hinduism is wrong. At the same time he cannot say it directly, else who will listen to him? They will be deeply offended. At the same time, he goes on opposing those that are opposite Hinduism. To the Hindu he will say there is no God, for the atheist he will say there is... why? It is merely a device to show that whatsoever you think is bound to be wrong - it cannot be understood with mind, but if you are seeking still you have not transcended mind. You have come to the master out of desire, pure consciousness is free from desire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top