Can Someone Put a Name to my Beliefs?

[dolphin910]

I think the initial problem is there are many views of the Buddha and Buddhism out there.

The most neutral explanation I’ve heard is that Buddhism is not theistic or atheistic (in the western sense) but non-theistic. It is a practical discipline that doesn’t concern itself with that we can not learn from experience. I don't know that it’s correct to say the Buddha did/did not believe in spiritual worlds (but things like Rebirth seem to imply it).

I understand your personal Rebirth conundrum. I really think there are only two positions we can take in this conundrum. There is the standard atheist view that consciousness extinguishes at physical brain death.. Any other Rebirth (candle or no candle analogy) belief requires acceptance of spiritual/superphysical dimensions not understood yet by science. .

+1 George-Ananda

Yes, your right. I was hoping to have some sort of rebirth process that works with my scientific mind spoken of, but I guess that just cannot be. I can still live by the teachings and better myself, without worrying of what is to come after death, if anything. Thank you for the help.

And if anyone comes across this and has the explanation I desire, your input would be appreciated, I will be checking back.

 

[mayuboar]

think of your body as a car, the man in side is a soul and he is on a journey.

to get to his destination he will require many vehicles as they get old and must be replaced so he exits the car and simply enters a vehicle most suited to his journey, one that will help him learn the most, and also take having learned from past vehicles(karma).

when he arrives he will exit the vehicle and walk into paradise.

heaven is simply a place, we have mountains, canyons, waterfalls, oceans and heaven, just another place formed by nature not by god.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

That would be against Buddhist teaching, as there is no driver.

 

[Orontes]

Reincarnation without preservation of self is the best way to put it, its just hard to describe this process with an atheistic, non magical view of the world

Well put.
Can someone who is Buddhist themselves or knowledgeable on the subject please explain to me how The Buddha taught rebirth, with no belief in god or or any mystic nature of that sort. These ideas seem entirely contradicting yet strangely fascinating to me.

Dolphin,


The early Buddhist notion of reincarnation is tied to the 5 Skhandas I mentioned. These are: matter, feeling conception, impulse and discernment. This means that being is an aggregate: a composite of elements that's coming together constitute the subject. The way the self as an aggregate was explained by early Buddhist missionaries was by referencing a chariot. The chariot is the coming together of several elements: the wheels, baseboard, driver basket etc. No single element is the chariot and when the elements are separated, the chariot is no more. The reincarnative element was the belief that once the various elements had separated (the ending of a subject's life) a new composite would arise, influenced by the prior relation. Therefore, there is no preserved self, but the actions of a subject inform what will next be. Thus reincarnation persists, but the self does not.


Note: early Buddhist Thought was not so much atheistic, as silent on metaphysical questions. The Buddha was neither a nihilist nor an eternalist. Rather, the focus was on resolving the perceived central problem: suffering. Metaphysical questions were to the Buddha like asking who made a given arrow, instead of working to remove the arrow stuck in the person.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Or, in short, if you really want to know what Buddha thought about the universe, become Buddha.

 

[Orontes]

It seems contradicting that one can believe in a form of rebirth, without believing in a spiritual world beyond our own. Science would suggest that upon death, oxygen would leave your brain and your neurons would atrophy and therefore there would be no consciousness. Being scientific myself, this is truth to me. However, The Buddha did not believe in god or a spiritual world, he appealed to logic. Yet at the same time he believed in rebirth by using the candle analogy I brought up before. I just want to know how one can be rebirthed or reincarnated without believing in a separate world beyond our own or any help from a creator, that seems contradicting as science would suggest nothingness after death. I like the idea of rebirth fitting in with science, I just need someone to explain how this works exactly, as everything I have come across is like the post a few up from this... just too hard to get a mental grasp on

Science is mute when it comes to metaphysical quesitons, by defintion. Their answer lay behond the purview of the science.

The Buddha did not appeal to logic. He made use of analogy. Logic as you understand it, is a product of the Greeks and would find its first real impulse with Parmenides in the 5th Century. Buddhist logic i.e. the Tetralemma etc. would develop as Buddhism moved toward it's metaphysical stage in responding to Hindu critiques i.e. The Nyaya School.

 

[truseeker]

call it totally confused

 

[Kemble]

I have always been interested in religion and have recently started studying world religions in college. However, for awhile now I have not been able to put a name to my beliefs and am hoping one of you can help me.
I have gravitated my beliefs towards the original teachings of the buddha. I follow my life in accordance to the 4 noble truths. I believe these to be essentially the most profound truth in existence. I believe in a rebirth, but no soul. Where as my life will end, my effect on reality and own thoughts and personality can give rise to a new existence on earth. However, I believe in no alternate reality, no magic, I solely believe in science. This makes my beliefs not classify as buddhism as we know it today, but instead relates to more of the ancient original teachings of Siddhartha himself. My belief in no god and no magic would classify myself as atheist however I see rebirth as the truth so I wouldn't consider myself an atheist. Someone shed some light on this as I want to have a name to classify my beliefs under. Thank you.

dolphin910, sounds very Theravadan. Try grabbing the book The Gods Drink Whiskey by Stephen T. Asma. Definitely up your alley.

 

[dolphin910]

Dolphin,


The early Buddhist notion of reincarnation is tied to the 5 Skhandas I mentioned. These are: matter, feeling conception, impulse and discernment. This means that being is an aggregate: a composite of elements that's coming together constitute the subject. The way the self as an aggregate was explained by early Buddhist missionaries was by referencing a chariot. The chariot is the coming together of several elements: the wheels, baseboard, driver basket etc. No single element is the chariot and when the elements are separated, the chariot is no more. The reincarnative element was the belief that once the various elements had separated (the ending of a subject's life) a new composite would arise, influenced by the prior relation. Therefore, there is no preserved self, but the actions of a subject inform what will next be. Thus reincarnation persists, but the self does not.


Note: early Buddhist Thought was not so much atheistic, as silent on metaphysical questions. The Buddha was neither a nihilist nor an eternalist. Rather, the focus was on resolving the perceived central problem: suffering. Metaphysical questions were to the Buddha like asking who made a given arrow, instead of working to remove the arrow stuck in the person.

This is an excellent explanation, I guess I am just obsessing too much on who made the arrow, my scientific mind needs explanation on these sort of things but I'm starting to realize that the specifics I seek may not be available.

 

[Orontes]

This is an excellent explanation, I guess I am just obsessing too much on who made the arrow, my scientific mind needs explanation on these sort of things but I'm starting to realize that the specifics I seek may not be available.

Happy to help. As I mentioned in my initial post, you seem to have Theravadan inclinations. It may be a direction you would want to explore further.

 

[mayuboar]

That would be against Buddhist teaching, as there is no driver.

how do you figure that

 

[dolphin910]

how do you figure that

Because in your car analogy, the driver of the car seems to represent a permanent soul. However the Buddha taught that nothing is permanent, not even a soul. So I believe the chariot example is much for fitting of the original Buddhist teachings. Your car and driver example seems to be more pertinent to the Hindu reincarnation beliefs.

And as for the Theravada teachings, I appreciate your help with narrowing my search. I believe that secular Buddhism is the classification that I fit, although there are no real writings or sacred text of that sort, so I will look into the Theravada teachings when I want to read and learn, thank you

 

[George-ananda]

That would be against Buddhist teaching, as there is no driver.

The driver is that ever-evolving non-permanent soul that exists until enlightenment is reached (Nirvana).

 

[George-ananda]

Because in your car analogy, the driver of the car seems to represent a permanent soul. However the Buddha taught that nothing is permanent, not even a soul. So I believe the chariot example is much for fitting of the original Buddhist teachings. Your car and driver example seems to be more pertinent to the Hindu reincarnation beliefs.

Please see my above post to Gjallarhorn.

Even in Hinduism there is no permanent soul (although it lasts many, many lifetimes). Eventually it is realized (Moksha) that all is and always was Brahman.

Ultimately in the grand wisdom:

Nirvana=Moksha
Buddhist Rebirth=Hindu Reincarnation

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The driver is that ever-evolving non-permanent soul that exists until enlightenment is reached (Nirvana).

Please see my above post to Gjallarhorn.

Even in Hinduism there is no permanent soul (although it lasts many, many lifetimes). Eventually it is realized (Moksha) that all is and always was Brahman.

Ultimately in the grand wisdom:

Nirvana=Moksha
Buddhist Rebirth=Hindu Reincarnation

So, when would you like to discuss Buddhism and not your pet religion?

 

[George-ananda]

So, when would you like to discuss Buddhism and not your pet religion?

I've been discussing Buddhism all along.

I'm saying this Buddhism+Reductionist Materialism (your pet religion) is a hybrid creation that doesn't stand up to analysis.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I've been discussing Buddhism all along.

I'm saying this Buddhism+Reductionist Materialism (your pet religion) is a hybrid creation that doesn't stand up to analysis.

Really? What I've been seeing is your belief on the subject, not analysis of the subject.

 

[George-ananda]

Really? What I've been seeing is your belief on the subject, not analysis of the subject.

What I saw was avoidance on your part when I tried to start a discussion on the topic of Rebirth.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

What I saw was avoidance on your part when I tried to start a discussion on the topic of Rebirth.

That's because you do not wish to discuss rebirth. You wish to discuss reincarnation, a different concept entirely.

 

[George-ananda]

That's because you do not wish to discuss rebirth. You wish to discuss reincarnation, a different concept entirely.

Not true, but I'm willing to start again constructively.

What happens after physical brain death (in your understanding of the Buddhist Rebirth concept)?