Concerning reincarnation

[George-ananda]

But I always feel like Hinduism is not very universal, you kind of have to link it with India, I mean is that true or am I way off??

Hinduism is so broad that what you say can be true and not true. I am westerner that speaks only English but I have found the highest philosophy and understanding of all of mankind's wisdom traditions in non-dual (God and creation are not-two) Hinduism. There are branches of Hinduism I know little about but that is not important to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

But I always feel like Hinduism is not very universal, you kind of have to link it with India, I mean is that true or am I way off??

Hinduism is plenty universal, I think. It does however have something of steep learning curve, particularly when one lack access to a good Guru.

Nobody teaches hell, except Christians and Muslims.

Reincarnation is taught by Hinduism (except in the Lingayat sect), Buddhism (but not in China and Japan),

I don't think so. Rebirth is not reincarnation. Even in Tibetan Buddhism, whose understanding of Rebirth is most alike Reincarnation, that phenomemon is perceived as rare and unusual, as I understand it.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Rebirth is not reincarnation.

Would you care to distinguish them? The OED treats them as synonyms.

 

[LuisDantas]

Would you care to distinguish them? The OED treats them as synonyms.

I suppose they may be synonimous in general usage.

In Buddhism, though, rebirth is a very specific concept that must by necessity be conciliated with other core concepts, most of which (Anatta,Interdependent Origination, Anicca, Sunyata) are all-out incompatible with the idea that there is some sort of personal "true self" soul that would transit from one's body to that of a newborn in the present or in the future.

It is true that many people that consider themselves Buddhists think of Rebirth as some sort of reincarnation. I just don't see how that could be explained in any way that would not include failure to understand the doctrine.

Rebirth is traditionally compared to a flame that transfers from a candle's wick to another's. As I understand it, that is because it refers to somewhat stable senses of self that are essentially illusory or at least complex in nature. Any situation when a sense of self regains a measure of stability could be understood to be a rebirth. IMO the wider meaning of rebirth is one that literally transcends the self, in that all people are inheritors and caretakers of a common social legacy.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

If Buddhism actually teaches that there is no real continuity between successive lives, no "self" that persists, then why would anyone bother to strive for nirvana? My death would be my extinction. If we consider incarnation to be suffering (and I obviously don't), why should I care about the suffering of a future existent who isn't me? I sometimes wonder how much connection there is between the teachings found in books on Buddhism and what the Buddhist in the streets of Colombo or Rangoon actually thinks.

 

[LuisDantas]

If Buddhism actually teaches that there is no real continuity between successive lives,

Far as I can tell, that is not at all the case. Instead, it teaches that there are no separate lives as such, because the continuity is so undeniable.

no "self" that persists, then why would anyone bother to strive for nirvana?

Because that is the logical thing to do once one realizes the full implications of it and of the alternatives.

My death would be my extinction. If we consider incarnation to be suffering (and I obviously don't), why should I care about the suffering of a future existent who isn't me? I sometimes wonder how much connection there is between the teachings found in books on Buddhism and what the Buddhist in the streets of Colombo or Rangoon actually thinks.

Far less than there probably should be, I regret. Not too few are even animists.

 

[Whiterain]

Regardless of the belief the reincarnation experience may bring you humiliation, discussing them may only make it worse.

I took to the event as satirical and comical... You may be embarrassed in your current life's actions in the idea of "Sins"...

We'll all deal with humiliation or great tales of success or heroism, We'll all deal with humiliation...

To the best of my experience, unless you've committed cannibalism, rape or serial murder, you will overcome your humiliation...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If Buddhism actually teaches that there is no real continuity between successive lives, no "self" that persists, then why would anyone bother to strive for nirvana?

The continuity is provided by kamma, in other words what we do in this life determines our next rebirth. Causes and effects, actions and consequences,

 

[buddhist]

I am very interested in Buddhism you see as well, I feel it is something that interests me so I ask from that perspective as well.

Early Buddhism teaches the existence of literal hells.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Early Buddhism teaches the existence of literal hells.

I'm still far from clear what you mean by "early Buddhism". The suttas were written several hundred years after the Buddha's death, and added to over a period of time. Some say that there were Mahayana schools during this time, so are you including the Mahayana in "early Buddhism"?

What time period are you actually referring to?

 

[buddhist]

I'm still far from clear what you mean by "early Buddhism". The suttas were written several hundred years after the Buddha's death, and added to over a period of time. Some say that there were Mahayana schools during this time, so are you including the Mahayana in "early Buddhism"?

What time period are you actually referring to?

I find this description of pre-sectarian Buddhism, and this of the earliest texts, adequate as a description of what I consider "early Buddhism"

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I find this description of pre-sectarian Buddhism, and this of the earliest texts, adequate as a description of what I consider "early Buddhism"

Not really. What time period are you calling "early Buddhism", and which texts are you basing your understanding on?

 

[buddhist]

Not really. What time period are you calling "early Buddhism", and which texts are you basing your understanding on?

I consider "early Buddhism" to have ended approximately by the first hundred years or so after the Buddha's paranibbana. The texts I base my understanding on are largely the suttas of the first four Pali nikayas.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I consider "early Buddhism" to have ended approximately by the first hundred years or so after the Buddha's paranibbana. The texts I base my understanding on are largely the suttas of the first four Pali nikayas.

We know very little about that period. If you're basing your Buddhism on the Pali Nikayas then basically you're a Theravadan.

 

[buddhist]

We know very little about that period. If you're basing your Buddhism on the Pali Nikayas then basically you're a Theravadan.

Not exactly. "Theravada" encompasses many modern traditions which I don't necessarily accept.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not exactly. "Theravada" encompasses many modern traditions which I don't necessarily accept.

So which school of Buddhism do you accept? There isn't an "Early Buddhism" school as far as I know, so presumably you're just making up your own approach based on reading the suttas?

 

[buddhist]

So which school of Buddhism do you accept? There isn't an "Early Buddhism" school as far as I know, so presumably you're just making up your own approach based on reading the suttas?

I don't really accept any one school of Buddhism, although I find that those aligned with the forest traditions to be closest to early Buddhism as I understand it. A "school" implies an authoritative hierarchy, and according to the earliest suttas, Buddha did not establish a hierarchy of priests.

Every individual is to take on the suttas as the Teacher, testing everything for himself or herself (and not simply "believe", e.g., a school), with monks and nuns as elder brothers and sisters along the path.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't really accept any one school of Buddhism, although I find that those aligned with the forest traditions to be closest to early Buddhism as I understand it.

You seem to have a traditional approach to the suttas, the Thai Forest teachers are generally more "modern" in approach.
Are you familiar with Buddhadasa's view on rebirth for example?

 

[buddhist]

You seem to have a traditional approach to the suttas, the Thai Forest teachers are generally more "modern" in approach.
Are you familiar with Buddhadasa's view on rebirth for example?

I haven't read his materials. What does he teach on rebirth?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Budhism that does not have hell and heaven does not also accept soul. It is karma that moves around.
Advaita Hinduism does not have hell and heaven because it believes in a universal substrate, Brahman, to constitute each and everything in the universe.
So, in this case, things/beings arise out of the substrate, Brahman, dissipate again into the substrate.

"Avināśi tu tad viddhi, yena sarvam idaḿ tatam;
vināśam avyayasyāsya, na kaścit kartum arhati"

That which pervades all this you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable. BhagawadGita 2.17