Buddhism & Reincarnation

[The Sum of Awe]

How many Buddhists here actually believe in reincarnation? Or rebirth, but the difference doesn't seem significant to me.


And how does it work when there is no soul? From my understanding; Buddhists who do believe in reincarnation also do not believe in a soul or a self. Then what exactly passes on? If there's no you to begin with, how is there a continuation of 'you'? What makes the second incarnation you instead of a separate person?

I always thought it was a bundle of karma. The last mind is erased and a new one arises with the karma of another passed onto them, but does this mean they are really them? And isn't karma universal?

 

[Willamena]

How many Buddhists here actually believe in reincarnation? Or rebirth, but the difference doesn't seem significant to me.

The significance is superstition.

 

[LuisDantas]

How many Buddhists here actually believe in reincarnation? Or rebirth, but the difference doesn't seem significant to me.

Maybe we should clarify this point then. I'm sort of allergic to the very idea of reincarnation, personally. Rebirth is inherently impersonal and a very different concept indeed.

And how does it work when there is no soul? From my understanding; Buddhists who do believe in reincarnation also do not believe in a soul or a self.

Anatta ("non-self") is such a core Buddhist concept that I must assume nearly all Buddhists who bothered to learn any formal doctrine accepted or at least are aware of it.

As for belief in reincarnation... well, that is just not Buddhist at all.

Then what exactly passes on? If there's no you to begin with, how is there a continuation of 'you'? What makes the second incarnation you instead of a separate person?

Reborn people are different people. Even before death we become different people along time.

Think of it as an inheritance of sorts. Going so far as to some mental inclinations and even memories, according to some Vajrayana schools (but even in those, such phenomena are exceedingly rare).

I always thought it was a bundle of karma. The last mind is erased and a new one arises with the karma of another passed onto them, but does this mean they are really them?

Of course they are not really the same people that died before. Death is indeed death.

And isn't karma universal?

Karma is impersonal.

 

[idav]

Maybe we should clarify this point then. I'm sort of allergic to the very idea of reincarnation, personally. Rebirth is inherently impersonal and a very different concept indeed.




Anatta ("non-self") is such a core Buddhist concept that I must assume nearly all Buddhists who bothered to learn any formal doctrine accepted or at least are aware of it.

As for belief in reincarnation... well, that is just not Buddhist at all.




Reborn people are different people. Even before death we become different people along time.

Think of it as an inheritance of sorts. Going so far as to some mental inclinations and even memories, according to some Vajrayana schools (but even in those, such phenomena are exceedingly rare).




Of course they are not really the same people that died before. Death is indeed death.




Karma is impersonal.

Whats your take in thervada where a Buddha is said to be able to come back?

 

[Poeticus]

As for belief in reincarnation... well, that is just not Buddhist at all.

Sure it is. Well maybe not in Western Buddhist circles, but in traditional Indian Buddhism-s, reincarnation was articulated by various prominent Buddhist personas---such as Dharmakirti:

While Dharmakīrti has sometimes been depicted as a dry practitioner of an essentially secular philosophy, this seems hardly defensible. Technical logical and epistemological discussions on sources of knowledge were not just pursued for their own sake. They were also used to establish Buddhist religious doctrines, like the Four Noble Truths, the proofs of the Buddha being an authoritative/reliable person (pramāṇapuruṣa, Tibetan tshad ma'i skyes bu), the law of retribution of acts (karman), reincarnation, compassion, omniscience, the innate Buddha-nature, absence of real personal identity, etc.[53] All these topics are treated in extenso in the second chapter of Pramāṇavārttika, and some form the subject of independent treatises by later Epistemologists.
______________
[53] For a few of the numerous publications on these subjects in Dharmakīrti, see Steinkellner (1982), Jackson (1993), Franco (1997), Taber (2003; 2009), Eltschinger (2007b), McClintock (2010). Vetter (1990) contains a German translation of the section in the second chapter of Pramāṇavārttika concerning the four noble truths.

source

 

[LuisDantas]

Whats your take in thervada where a Buddha is said to be able to come back?

Far as I know, no Buddhist school or line of thought believes that the Buddha of 2600 years ago (the Tathagata, or Shakyamuni) will return. Certainly not Theravada.

Maitreya Buddha is most definitely not expected to be in any sense a reincarnation of the Shakyamuni! That would be so... odd, gross even.

On the other hand, Buddhism is just not big on separations among individuals. They are definitely not seen as particularly meaningful:

(...) Everyone has been everyone else's father and mother (...)

Source: Samsara (Wikipedia), citing Patrul Rinpoche (1998), The Words of My Perfect Teacher, Altamira.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure it is. Well maybe not in Western Buddhist circles, but in traditional Indian Buddhism-s, reincarnation was articulated by various prominent Buddhist personas---such as Dharmakirti:

That is just impossible to reconcile with actual Buddhist teachings, sorry.

See for instance (thanks, Willamena!) Chapter Six "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula.

I don't doubt that many native Asiatics fail to understand that. Then again, it is not unusual for folk varieties of religions to take an animistic turn. All the same, the doctrine is very clear.

Why your source claims that Dharmakirti taught reincarnation as a Buddhist doctrine, I just don't know. It is not alone on that, of course; HP Blavatsky did as well. But Blavatsky was a con woman, albeit a very succesfull one.

 

[Poeticus]

That is just impossible to reconcile with actual Buddhist teachings, sorry.

How is it impossible when it is Dharmakirti?!

See for instance (thanks, Willamena!) Chapter Six "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula.

So Walpola Rahula knows more than Dharmakirti?

I don't doubt that many native Asiatics fail to understand that. Then again, it is not unusual for folk varieties of religions to take an animistic turn. All the same, the doctrine is very clear.

This is just truly comical.

Why your source claims that Dharmakirti taught reincarnation as a Buddhist doctrine, I just don't know.

It's alright. You don't have to take Stanford Univeristy's word for it, even if it is their philosophy department quoting from Dharmakirti's own work.

It is not alone on that, of course; HP Blavatsky did as well. But Blavatsky was a con woman, albeit a very succesfull one.

Equating Blavatsky with Dharmakirti (the person who was practically responsible for invigorating traditional Buddhist thought during a time when Mimamsaka-s were defeating them left and right in polemical debates) ... holy smokes!

----------------------

EDIT--Nagarjuna talks about rebirth as well:

When Nāgārjuna argues that neither mover nor motion exist by svabhāva he first of all makes an important point about some central concepts of the Buddhist world-view. The goal of the Buddhist path is the liberation from cyclic existence, a form of existence that is nothing but the moving about (sams&#7771 through a succession of rebirths.

source

... if you don't accept the validity of Nagarjuna's epistemic articulations, instead favoring Rahula, I'll understand. But to be honest, to disqualify traditional Buddhist sources as "impossible" in regards to their articulations on [Buddhist-flavored] reincarnation/rebirth would derive the ire of even South Asian historians and related academicians. It would practically be intellectual dishonesty at best and whitewashing of historical facts at worst.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How many Buddhists here actually believe in reincarnation? Or rebirth, but the difference doesn't seem significant to me.


And how does it work when there is no soul? From my understanding; Buddhists who do believe in reincarnation also do not believe in a soul or a self. Then what exactly passes on? If there's no you to begin with, how is there a continuation of 'you'? What makes the second incarnation you instead of a separate person?

I always thought it was a bundle of karma. The last mind is erased and a new one arises with the karma of another passed onto them, but does this mean they are really them? And isn't karma universal?

Ego comes by the aggregates of which rise and fall away. The entire composition of atoms and molecules that are responsible for life really don't go anywhere, so eventually, new arrangements are formed and life springs out whenever conditions permit. There is no soul or passing on because there is nothing separate in the first place that requires any type of transmigration to take place. Karma remains inclusive among the inter-relationship of particles via cause and effect and gives rise to the phenomena of self as well as it's dissipation. You are not really born or really dead in respect that there is nothing missing in the whole. Only rising and falling of what is not truly separate nor separated.

 

[LuisDantas]

How is it impossible when it is Dharmakirti?!

I have not seen any evidence that he was a reincarnationist. Even your quote just says that there are those who believe he was.

So Walpola Rahula knows more than Dharmakirti?

That is not even the question that applies here, but sure, it might well be. Why do you ask?

This is just truly comical.

More like tragic. Animism is harmful, particularly when mixed with Dharma.

It's alright. You don't have to take Stanford University's word for it, even if it is their philosophy department quoting from Dharmakirti's own work.

Indeed, I will not.

It is a good thing that you realize that, despite your odd sarcasm. You know how well those universities understand and present Dharma, don't you?

Equating Blavatsky with Dharmakirti (the person who was practically responsible for invigorating traditional Buddhist thought during a time when Mimamsaka-s were defeating them left and right in polemical debates) ... holy smokes!

Again, you have presented no evidence that Dharmakirti believed in or taught reincarnation in any way, shape or form.

 

[Poeticus]

I have not seen any evidence that he was a reincarnationist. Even your quote just says that there are those who believe he was.

This is outright absurd, Luis. My quoted portion nowhere states that "there are those who believe he was". The author of that article is using Dharmakirti's own text, the text that Dharmakirti wrote himself.

More like tragic. Animism is harmful, particularly when mixed with Dharma.

Another absurdity. The only Indian philosophy that did not articulate reincarnation were those of the Lokayata. To disregard this historical fact is like saying that 1+1=78.

It is a good thing that you realize that, despite your odd sarcasm. You know how well those universities understand and present Dharma, don't you?

At least they use primary sources, not swim in misappropriated, watered-down versions of what gets passed around as "real Dharma".

Again, you have presented no evidence that Dharmakirti believed in or taught reincarnation in any way, shape or form.

What? The Buddhist position on personal identity is well articulated, and well known in both academic and traditional circles. I also quoted a source. You have yet to do the same.

 

[LuisDantas]

Poeticus, I fear you are just not well informed about Buddhism.

This is outright absurd, Luis. My quoted portion nowhere states that "there are those who believe he was". The author of that article is using Dharmakirti's own text, the text that Dharmakirti wrote himself.

Perhaps. Has he understood it, though? Is he expressing its message accurately?

Another absurdity. The only Indian philosophy that did not articulate reincarnation were those of the Lokayata. To disregard this historical fact is like saying that 1+1=78.

I have no idea why you think so, but you are simply wrong on those points.

At least they use primary sources, not swim in misappropriated, watered-down versions of what gets passed around as "real Dharma".

Unlike you just did, is that what you mean?

Is there any particular reason why you are attempting to strong-arm me?

What? The Buddhist position on personal identity is well articulated, and well known in both academic and traditional circles. I also quoted a source. You have yet to do the same.

Have you already forgotten Rahula?

 

[Poeticus]

Poeticus, I fear you are just not well informed about Buddhism.

I'm disappointed, Luis. That's the first time you have ever straw-manned me.

 

[LuisDantas]

You mean "refused to be intimidated by you". I'm like that.

 

[Poeticus]

You mean "refused to be intimidated by you". I'm like that.

Strong-arm you? Intimidate you? Luis, it seems you are projecting.

Coming back to the point, Dharmakirti's defense of the Buddhist thought of rebirth and his articulation of rebirth is found in his Pramanavarttika.

 

[LuisDantas]

Strong-arm you? Intimidate you? Luis, it seems you are projecting.

Perhaps. I'm available to be convinced otherwise. Be my guest.

Coming back to the point, Dharmakirti's defense of the Buddhist thought of rebirth and his articulation of rebirth is found in his Pramanavarttika.

Rebirth, certainly. Reincarnation? I very much doubt it.

 

[idav]

The Dalai Lama is traditionally thought to be the*rebirth*in a line of*tulkus*who are considered to be manifestations of the*bodhisattva*of*compassion,*Avalokiteśvara.*
Dalai Lama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Far as I know, no Buddhist school or line of thought believes that the Buddha of 2600 years ago (the Tathagata, or Shakyamuni) will return. Certainly not Theravada.

Maitreya Buddha is most definitely not expected to be in any sense a reincarnation of the Shakyamuni! That would be so... odd, gross even.

On the other hand, Buddhism is just not big on separations among individuals. They are definitely not seen as particularly meaningful:



Source: Samsara (Wikipedia), citing Patrul Rinpoche (1998), The Words of My Perfect Teacher, Altamira.

 

[Poeticus]

Rebirth, certainly. Reincarnation? I very much doubt it.

As is your right to doubt.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Dalai Lama is traditionally thought to be the*rebirth*in a line of*tulkus*who are considered to be manifestations of the*bodhisattva*of*compassion,*Avalokiteśvara.*
Dalai Lama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep. That is a supernatural claim, one that is basically restricted to a handful of Lamas.

Even in Tibetan Vajrayana schools the Lamas are explicitly unusual in that they even claim to have memories from their predecessors.

A "superpower", if you will. A particularly strong inheritance from specific people. In essence, an inheritance of a vocation for wisdom with an emphasis on compassion.

However... a manifestations is not a reincarnation, very far from it actually, just as everyone being everyone else's mother is not a claim of reincarnation either.

It always surprises me that people learn of that and think "reincarnation". It is just odd, and a very far cry from what is actually taught. But I suppose that one has to have some familiarity with the basic concepts.

 

[LuisDantas]

As is your right to doubt.

One has a duty to try and clarify misconceptions when he has the chance.