Reincarnation vs Resurrection. Which is real?

[Thinking Homer]

Well, I dont know about the abrahamic afterlife, but in Buddhism the idea is as long as we are attached to greed, ego (termed as lust among other things), we are reborn back into this life. There is a continuation of mind (or some say consciousness) that the thoughts and intent behind good deeds stay in each life even though we have different bodies.

I compare it to a dirty string; the dirt shapes a string so people think there is a string under the dirt. Consciousness is that X to which the dirt shapes; its nothingness.

So, when we get rid of attachments, the dirt, we see there is nothing there. Its an illusion.

Afterlife rebirth is trying to take off the dirt. Not by faith and belief, but by action, prayer, and meditation.

Once there is no dirt and there is nothing, we die; we cease to exist.

As for other religions, Im not sure. Im learning more about rebirth myself-well, in a non-intellectual perspective.

How exactly does reincarnation differ between Buddhism and Hinduism? All I know is that Hinduism teaches atman, whereas Buddhism teaches anatman (Nothing is self)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How exactly does reincarnation differ between Buddhism and Hinduism? All I know is that Hinduism teaches atman, whereas Buddhism teaches anatman (Nothing is self)

Hinduism focuses on god and the nature of ones soul.
Buddhism focuses on the nature of the mind.

Hinduism, we are reincarnated until we eventually reach god. The details I'm not sure.

Buddhism, we go through rebirth (rather than reincarnation) because we are attracted to pain and pleasure which keeps us from dying. When there is no attachment, there is no rebirth; like The Buddha Guatama, we cease exist.

 

[Marcion]

How exactly does reincarnation differ between Buddhism and Hinduism? All I know is that Hinduism teaches atman, whereas Buddhism teaches anatman (Nothing is self)

I think the difference is not really there.

No-thing literally means 'no thing' that can be objectified. It does not say anything about the subject though.
You could say that the subject does not exist if there is nothing to be objectified, this is perhaps the view in Buddhism.
In (some) Hinduism it is said that having or experiencing a subject is an illusion and the self-realisation of the individual subject is to lose the individual subject when merging (back) into the Cosmic Subject (also called God) or realising that the divide was never there.

This Cosmic Subject of Hinduism has no need for any objects but a Subject without a body (or brain) is something one cannot imagine and therefore the Buddha remained silent when asked about its "existence" or reality.
In (some) Hinduism the Cosmic or Supreme Subject is worshipped in devotion in order to hasten the transition from the limited individual subject into the Cosmic Subject (free of the illusion of having a separate subjective existence).

Buddhism has chosen not to do this because the Supreme Subject (Maha-Nirvana) cannot and should not be objectified.
This makes Buddhism a bit dry compared to (some) Hinduism because is doesn't use the vehicle of bhakti (attraction and devotion to the Cosmic Consciousness or Supreme Subject).

In Hinduism it is the soul with all of its samskara's that moves from one incarnation to the next on its way to eventually spending all of the samskara's after which the soul or individual subject loses its separate identity or limits merging back into the Supreme Consciousness.

I think in Buddhism the individual subject is not seen as real (not even as a temporary or relative reality), so the soul as an entity moving from one life to the next becomes somewhat problematic. I don't yet know how Buddhism solves this matter.

 

[Thinking Homer]

No-thing literally means 'no thing' that can be objectified. It does not say anything about the subject though.
You could say that the subject does not exist if there is nothing to be objectified, this is perhaps the view in Buddhism.

Is this not just denying reality though?

In (some) Hinduism the Cosmic or Supreme Subject is worshipped in devotion in order to hasten the transition from the limited individual subject into the Cosmic Subject (free of the illusion of having a separate subjective existence).

Buddhism has chosen not to do this because the Supreme Subject (Maha-Nirvana) cannot and should not be objectified.
This makes Buddhism a bit dry compared to (some) Hinduism because is doesn't use the vehicle of bhakti (attraction and devotion to the Cosmic Consciousness or Supreme Subject).

I am busy reading the Gita at the moment, so I know most of the core doctrines in Hinduism. I was actually surprised how monotheistic its teaching is though haha...

I think there are some common themes that occur in both Christianity and Hinduism. The 'great divide' between the self and Brahman is the ignorance (avidya), whereas in Christianity it is sin. Shree Krishna mentions that Bhakti Yog on the Supreme Personality allows one to reach the Supreme Abode and escape reincarnation. Christians believe that the sin that divides us and God has been bridged through the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, which purified us of our sins.

 

[Marcion]

Is this not just denying reality though?

I think there are some common themes that occur in both Christianity and Hinduism. The 'great divide' between the self and Brahman is the ignorance (avidya), whereas in Christianity it is sin. Shree Krishna mentions that Bhakti Yog on the Supreme Personality allows one to reach the Supreme Abode and escape reincarnation. Christians believe that the sin that divides us and God has been bridged through the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, which purified us of our sins.

That is exactly the goal, to transcend the illusion of this relative reality and become one with the Ultimate Reality (beyond pleasure and suffering).

Sin is that which goes against the rules and regulations mentioned in the Bible.
Avidya is to go against the natural flow of the universe. The natural flow of the universe for a human being is to not acquire new samskara's and to get rid of existing samskara's. This is done by following a mystic or God-centered and not a self-centered approach in life (which Jesus also teaches).

 

[Frog]

What about the option of living on as a spirit or soul without a physical body?

kekkkkekk That would be hilarious. I would haunt all the womens change rooms.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The question of who has such experiences is an interesting one to me. In general, humans are very variable. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, for example. I would ascribe it therefore as due to normal variability.

To your second point, questioning the strength of data is always important. When I've read various documents, I would agree that some evidence is stronger than other evidence. Personally I'd rank physical evidence as stronger. There are many cases of birthmarks which are discussed a bit here Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons

I'd love to see other teams do similar investigations which is a normal part of the research paradigm. I'd also welcome people looking at the research methods and suggesting ways to improve the methodology.

The pressure to find confirming evidence might play a role here, as in many cases where the proposition goes against science, and if we do allow the concept of reincarnation then we have to devise a mechanism for this to occur - perhaps the soul - and then to prove the existence of the latter - so just another thing to explain. Like the case of UFOs, a few unexplained cases hardly then means that there are aliens (that have visited Earth). Similarly for a few coincidences that might suggest reincarnation. How many cases would prove this?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Philosophical arguments suggest that belief in extinction is little more than a category error.

So, would this (reincarnation) apply to all our past ancestors - the whole lineage - or at what stage would it occur? Did God just decide, OK, this lot are worthy to be reincarnated, but the previous lot weren't. Unless one has a rather different version of our past history. Or, no God, and some other process involved.

 

[sayak83]

Is this not just denying reality though?



I am busy reading the Gita at the moment, so I know most of the core doctrines in Hinduism. I was actually surprised how monotheistic its teaching is though haha...

I think there are some common themes that occur in both Christianity and Hinduism. The 'great divide' between the self and Brahman is the ignorance (avidya), whereas in Christianity it is sin. Shree Krishna mentions that Bhakti Yog on the Supreme Personality allows one to reach the Supreme Abode and escape reincarnation. Christians believe that the sin that divides us and God has been bridged through the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, which purified us of our sins.

Great to know that you are reading the Gita. Its a very good resource. As you said..very monotheistic but also has a strong monistic flavor that comes from the early Upanisads.
The main difference between avidya and sin is that the former does not have any baggage of guilt or moral failing while the latter does. On this difference hinges most of the key distinctions between Hinduism and the Abrahamic faiths....I mean actual ones and not cosmetic differences on how worship happens etc.

 

[sun rise]

The pressure to find confirming evidence might play a role here, as in many cases where the proposition goes against science, and if we do allow the concept of reincarnation then we have to devise a mechanism for this to occur - perhaps the soul - and then to prove the existence of the latter - so just another thing to explain. Like the case of UFOs, a few unexplained cases hardly then means that there are aliens (that have visited Earth). Similarly for a few coincidences that might suggest reincarnation. How many cases would prove this?

The number of cases is much more than "a few" and coincidence does not describe someone who remembers a name, location, cause of death matching a birth mark and many other features of the former life which is confirmed.

And I think we're agreed on the need for the methodology to be looked at and improved as well as more research teams looking at the evidence.

 

[ajay0]

The resurrection of the saints is real, and reincarnation has been scientifically proven. - Thus your poll needs both as an option.
In my opinion.

Thank you for this link.

Not just Dr. Ian Stevenson, but Dr. Brian Weiss, who is a well-established psychiatrist, have also authored books in this regard based on reincarnation case studies he encountered in his practice. Weiss was himself a nonbeliever with respect to reincarnation till he personally came upon such case studies amongst his patients during hypnotic regression.

Brian Weiss - Wikipedia

Brian L. Weiss, MD

I find Dr. Weiss' s argument that most phobias, ailments and philias can be sequenced to past life experiences, as quite plausible and logical.

Reading his books I came across the example of an American lady suffering from phobia related to large water bodies. Under hypnotic regression, the lady found herself to be a young boy who had drowned in a lake during a storm.

Interestingly such phobias too disappeared after hypnotic regression, which reminds one of the famous scientist Marie Curie's saying, " Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less. "

Hypnotic regression, thus has great potential in curing of phobias and psychological disorders in the psychiatric field, as shown by the example of Dr. Brian Weiss. This can become a game-changer in the medical field in the long run.

Dr. Michael Newton is also an another pioneer in this field, and who have also authored books on reincarnation case studies he encountered in his practice.

Dr. Michael Newton | The Founder of The Newton Institute

 

[sojourner]

I believe in hope. Because I am Christian, I have hope of infinity.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The number of cases is much more than "a few" and coincidence does not describe someone who remembers a name, location, cause of death matching a birth mark and many other features of the former life which is confirmed.

And I think we're agreed on the need for the methodology to be looked at and improved as well as more research teams looking at the evidence.

As with an afterlife, I still find so many more problems with a concept like reincarnation than in simple death being the end. As I mentioned in another comment, at what stage in our development did this occur, for both as well, or are we to assume that many other creatures undergo the same process? The fact that few scientists (apart from people like Sheldrake) are willing to look at this area generally indicates the likelihood of finding little there. And if the following is true (at the bottom), his mention of belief in telepathy puts Stevenson in a certain place outside science - telepathy being another unproved phenomena.

The apparent belief system of Ian Stevenson | SkepticReport

Still too much room for falsification in my view,

 

[sun rise]

The fact that few scientists (apart from people like Sheldrake) are willing to look at this area generally indicates the likelihood of finding little there

Science does not work that way. There are many reasons why some discovery gets ignored. One of them is the negative reaction of one's peers - in other words social pressure in the scientific community. There are many web pages full of such examples such as 7 Scientists whose ideas were rejected during their lifetimes
Medscape: Medscape Access and even books on the subject https://www.amazon.com/Prematurity-Scientific-Discovery-Resistance-Neglect/dp/0520231066

 

[Mock Turtle]

Science does not work that way. There are many reasons why some discovery gets ignored. One of them is the negative reaction of one's peers - in other words social pressure in the scientific community. There are many web pages full of such examples such as 7 Scientists whose ideas were rejected during their lifetimes
Medscape: Medscape Access and even books on the subject https://www.amazon.com/Prematurity-Scientific-Discovery-Resistance-Neglect/dp/0520231066

Science doesn't work by the methods used by Freud either, but his influences have infected psychiatry for a long time. I'll grant that some areas of research are quite difficult for any participants, but equally so there are many, perhaps like Stevenson (and Sheldrake), who are out on a limb because of their inherent beliefs driving their work rather than if they were doing legitimate science.

And it's almost natural for some ideas to be rejected initially until sufficient evidence is obtained - which often only occurs when new technology or new information arrives to confirm such ideas.

PS. And none of the examples mentioned in the article really refer to something coming from individuals or their experiences. All could eventually be proved by science.

 

[viole]

The resurrection of the saints is real, and reincarnation has been scientifically proven. - Thus your poll needs both as an option.
In my opinion.

In your opinion.....it has been scientifically proven?

No doubt.

Ciao

- viole

 

[wizanda]

it has been scientifically proven?

We've already answered that question in the thread by different researchers evidence, that show some form of transmigration of the soul is taking place.

In my opinion.

 

[Muffled]

So do you believe that people can reincarnate into a different religion?

I believe so but just as a spirit can retain an ability to play the piano a spirit may also retain its religious beliefs. So the idea that Islam could wipe out Christianity by killing Christians is foolish because we will simply be reincarnated as Christians.

 

[Muffled]

What are those concepts? I ask because many people in the west have great misconceptions about Hindu and Buddhist philosophies and concepts.

As I understood it in the Upanishads when a person dies the spirit goes into the earth grows into a plant is eaten by animals and then eaten by men to be the reincarnation of a person. Since Cows aren't eaten those spirits are trapped evidently. I suppose I misunderstood it because it sounds too stupid to be a real belief.

 

[Muffled]

I think one issue I would have with reincarnation would be, why doesn't everyone have such memories. Only a few, in the overall scheme of things, having such is a bit questionable. And much of these 'memories' might come from retrieved preverbal memories where the subject has no conscious knowledge of obtaining such information. Also, it's all a bit easy to falsify evidence to suit.

I believe not everyone is directly in touch with His spirit or simply dismisses anything like that as a fantasy dream.