Reincarnation

[anders]

One thing has been puzzling me for years.

There is no such thing as an "I" or "self"; yet this non-existent "I" should try to get away from the eternal cycle of new births. Why?

The only reason I can imagine is that I should care so much for future beings, that I should avoid creating fruits of dhamma which in turn would give rise to a new being.

Are there better explanations?

Anders

 

[Engyo]

Anders -

I am probably not the best Buddhist to deal with your question. The tradition/school I practice doesn't view "nirvana" or stepping off the wheel of rebirth as a goal. Attainment of nirvana was thought to equate to the end of suffering, as well as enlightenment.

My tradition, Nichiren Buddhism, believes that perfect enlightenment has always been the goal. In the Lotus Sutra the Buddha states that he taught many different paths to appeal to many different kinds of people, but that ultimately they all become the same path towards enlightenment. Practicing this path, also known as the One Vehicle, individuals are concerned not only with their own progress on the path but that of others as well. Rebirth, under this view, is another chance to continue assisting others on their paths as well as making more progress on our own path. Thus rebirth is not something to avoid or escape.

Rebirth is also distinct from reincarnation; the two terms are not interchangeable. Reincarnation signifies the return of an individual; rebirth does not. Rebirth signifies a new being; there is a certain continuity from the previous, in the form of karma, but they are not two instances of the same individual.

Emptiness, or the lack of a "self" is exactly the concept here. Basically it means that there is nothing that is absolute/eternal/unchanging. Because this is so, there is no "self" which continues from life to life. However, karma is passed along, so it behooves us to create the best possible karma we can to pass on to the next individual "we" become, whether that involves attaining nirvana or enlightenment.

 

[Runt]

Hmm... Engyo, I think I MAY agree with you. I have some thoughts on rebirth, but I'm not sure they are the same as yours.

Here is what I believe:

We humans are ultimately spiritual creatures temporarily "visiting" the physical plane. Our "natural" state is to be a part of the vast Consciousness that is God. We were there before we were born, and we will return when we die. That which some call "Heaven" is simply the totality of all Consciousness. When you “go to Heaven” you join that Consciousnes that is God and become one with It. You leave behind your human body, your human personality, and your limited understanding of the world and literally become God. You are above the need for things like pleasure and happiness.

Yet at the same time, we are part of this Consciousness even as we visit the physical plane; but we do not have full understanding while on the physical plane of the spiritual reality; when we die, or when we attain enlightenment, we will come to that understanding.

Therefore, our "self" is an entity that consists of three distinct parts:

1. Consciousness which is not unique and is absorbed back into the vast pool of Consciousness (God) upon your death
2. Body which decays and goes back to the earth upon death
3. Personality/Mind which is a one-of-a-kind combination of genes, environmental influences, and life experiences which is lost forever upon death.

The Consciousness is the only transcendent part of our total "self". The Body and Personality/Mind exist on the physical plane alone, and are shed when we die or are acknowledged as seperate and inconsequential when we attain enlightment.

Therefore, part of the Consciousness that inhabited a body for a while can potentially find itself in a body again. Just like water evaporates from a pool and then rains down again, with some of it ending up together in another pool. But as far as an individual human's Personality/Mind returning to live another life in another body… no.

 

[Engyo]

Buddhism posits 8 or 9 conciousnesses. The first 5 are connected to the 5 senses; sight , hearing, taste, touch, and smell. The 6th is the awareness of these first 5. All animals (insects birds fish mammals) have this to a greater or lesser degree. The 7th is the rational cognitive mind (what we are using to communicate with right now). This reflects the "personality/mind" you mention above. The 8th is the alaya conciousness or karmic storehouse. This has no real analog in your scenario. The 9th is the seed of enlightenment which all life contains, and which may somewhat correspond to overall conciousness you mention. However, this is not a universal pool out of which we each get a small amount; rather it is something which occurs as an integral part of the formation of an individual life out of the 5 aggregates.

My understanding of this whole piece of things is still developing; I apologize if I haven't been able to convey it very clearly.

 

[Runt]

It is a little confusing, but I think it helps.

For me, the first 5 levels of consciousness you listed would be part of the physical Body. The 6th and 7th would be the Personality/Mind. The 8th level, which you defined as "the alaya conciousness or karmic storehouse" is, for me, seperate from the Self: it exists on the spiritual plane but affects us in the spiritual plane; is is basically the direct consequence of our actions (but more than mere scientific "cause and effect") rather than a buildup of karma that is part of the Self. The 9th is, as far as I can tell, similar to my notion of a vast Consciousness of which we can comprehend a small part while limited by the five senses and the 6th and 7th levels, but different. You seem to be saying that it is a POTENTIAL to comprehend this Consciousness, rather than an actual part of us? Or am I misinterpreting you?

 

[Engyo]

Runt -

I don't think that Buddhahood exists independently of the living beings who all exhibit it's potential - I don't envision a vast pool of Buddhahood just sort of floating somewhere, with bits zooming off to become parts of individuals as they come into existence.

A friend likens the potential for enlightenment in each of us to sports or music in this way. Everyone has the potential to become a musician. Some people never do anything with this potential. Many people learn a bit of musical theory, sing a few songs along with the radio, and so on. Some people make music the focus of their lives, and some few become the incredibly inspiring talents that leave all of the rest of us in awe of their accomplishments.

Sports are the same. Millions of people play basketball. Thousands play at the collegiate/semi-pro/Olympic level. Hundreds play professional basketball, but there are only a very few whose names are known worldwide.

That said, I don't think there is a vast pool of musicianship or sports talent floating around waiting to manifest; I think it's more part ad parcel of life itself. Please understand though, that we have strayed into the realm of my own opinions, rather than actual Buddhism. I will need to do some more studying before I can speak to this from the standpoint of Buddhism rather than my opinions.

 

[Runt]

Please understand though, that we have strayed into the realm of my own opinions, rather than actual Buddhism. I will need to do some more studying before I can speak to this from the standpoint of Buddhism rather than my opinions.

Heh. Sometimes I really wonder what religion my opinions correspond to. Definitely a mixture... but still...

I don't think that Buddhahood exists independently of the living beings who all exhibit it's potential - I don't envision a vast pool of Buddhahood just sort of floating somewhere, with bits zooming off to become parts of individuals as they come into existence.

LMAO. I think that this Buddhahood and the Consciousness I speak of are two seperate things. This Consciousness is a part of us all... consider it like this... we are all part of humanity, but no one human IS humanity in and of itself. We are all part of this Consciousness, but the Consciousness itself (God) is more than any one individual. For me, Buddhahood would be something subtally different... the ability to recognize that you are part of this Consciousness, the ability to sense it, the ability to become content with your place within it and help others do so as well. Like you say, this would be more of a potential all of us have but only some develop.

 

[David Morley]

The ancient 'Bon' philosophy says that there is a fundamental 'you', which is reborn, and in each incarnation a new soul ('I') must be built around it. I think that most Buddhist traditions would agree on something like this. Therefore the 'I' self is transient and belongs only to this incarnation. This 'I' colours the fundamental 'you' and therefore has an affect on the new incarnation.

Hopefully enlightenment will join all (everything) together and there will be awareness of all, past and present.

Look up 'anatta':

Anatta
A doctrine in Theravada Buddhism. There is reincarnation, but not of the self. Only 'psychic patterns' are imprinted on a new person. Identity of being does not have to co-exist with the identity of awareness. A person's present sense of self is not at all identical with the reincarnating soul. Historically, the idea is a reaction to the earlier unsophistcated ideas about the reincarnating self. Exploring Reincarnation - Hans TenDam

 

[Engyo]

David -

Thanks for finding a very clear explanation of what I so fumblingly tried to describe!

 

[inca]

En Gyo you sign your name (or nickname) with those ideograms. Are those Japanese or Chinese? Do you know how can I write the sound J-VEH (without the sound of an H)? Sorry to interrupt your chat, but I won't discuss more about it after this message.
Thanks in case you can help me with this or have the intention to help me!

 

[inca]

Or Yeh-Veh...?

 

[Engyo]

Inca -

The characters are Kanji ........ Kanji is the classical version of Chinese and Japanese writing. The problem with writing your sound is that Kanji is concept based, not sound based. In english, the letters indicate the approximate sounds which form the particular word you are interested in. In doing so they convey meaning. In kanji, the character signifies a concept; although my name is said as a single word, and spelled so in english, it is really two words.

There are case of new words being created by using characters whose sounds mimic the sounds of that word in other languages....... as long as there is no character for anything resembling that concept already. One can get into trouble with this though; each character has several different meanings, usually one main one and a couple of auxiliary or historical meanings. This has led to some of the hilarity when western advertising meets chinese characters (will try to find some of the stories).

Basically, I don't know enough to help you; someone more conversant with chinese and japanese could probably tell you whether this concept already has a character match, or how to create a new one if not. Sorry I can't be of more assistance.

 

[inca]

Thanks for your interest, I appreciate it.

 

[anders]

inca,

Engyo already remarked on the practical impossibility if your question. Just a few more remarks:

The En character in Engyo's name can have at least five other pronuciations in other Japanese contexts. The character is not used in Chinese.

If you want a transcription of the Hebrew name of the Lord with a sound left out, forget it! The name used in a Japanese Bible is only one character, pronounced jin, shin, kami... in different contexts. If you used phonetic spelling in Japanese using one of the Japanese syllabaries, my guess is that nobody would guess a meaning or a reference, because the name is not written that way. The Bible in Chinese uses another word for God, two characters pronounced shangdi. There is a very small degree of standardisation for the writing of foreign names in Chinese, and, as Engyo pointed out, the results sometimes are not even wrong, if carried out by a non-native speaker.

As may be inferred from Engyo's and my posts, there is not even an accepted definition of what a "word" is in Chinese, or in Japanese written in kanji.

 

[inca]

Anders: Too much obliged. Yet, I didn't want to write the name leaving the sound out. In fact all the opposite. In Hebrew for reasons I explained in this forum they have always write a transliteration of YAHWAH, YAHVEH, JAHVEH and similar things. I want to write something in Chinese or Japanese which is similar to the SOUND in English of saying "J-VEH" or the SPELLING I (like in sit, lick, flick) followed by E (like in met, wet, set) plus VEH (without the gutural sound of the H). Is there at least a sound similar to what I'm saying? Can anyone write it to me? To me the SOUND is more important than the writing. If I try to imitate the original Italian sound of the name we write in English as "Christopher Columbus" I would have to write something not existing: I would write "ChristO'photo Colombo" since PH has the English sound of F and the T is like a soft R in "photo" or "gotta". The emphasis of the sound in the vowel O in ChristO since English doesn't have a visible written accent. So, really I need someone to help me to write what is "imposible". I know, it's imposible to write "ChristO'photo Colombo" but now you know the equivalent of the Italian original name (different from Spanish, Cristóbal Colón and Portuguese Cristóvão Colombo, etc). There must be a sound similar represented by ancient 50.000 Chinese ideograms or the 2000 we need to read the newspaper!

 

[inca]

When Americans went to Japan for the first time, they couldn't pronounce "doô itashima****ê" (meaning "you're welcome" after "thanks"=domo arigato), so they invented an homophonous sound which was a false cognate. They said "don't touch my moustache". In Spanish, if you want to ask the waiter if "is there butter?" ("hay mantequilla?"), the sound in English is equivalent to say "I mean to kill ya?". If I say in Russian "good" the sound is very similar to say "horror show" in English. In Japanese if I say "ohayo" (good morning) is the equivalent sound as naming Ohio and the name O'Hara would mean "honoured stomach". That's what I need. I need to write the equivalent SOUND of what in English is spelling I (like in sit, click), E (like in met, wet) plus VEH (without the sound of H) which is a sound pretty much like saying J-VEH...but in Chinese or Japanese, Mandarine, Corean, etc. I know in Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French the written of that sound would be IEVE or IÊVE.

 

[inca]

The equivalent of Spanish "hay mantequilla?" (is there butter) is not as I wrote "I mean to kill ya?" but almost like "I meant to kill ya?".

 

[anders]

inca,

I sent you a private message with a description of a transliteration of the nonsense name "Jehovah", so let's get back to reincarnation here.

 

[OctoberTheHottie]

I have read in reincarnation that before we are 'born' we choose our parents and our environment (as in what religion or culture of our parents) as it will prove to be a learning scenerio for us to continue our growth. Does any one know how far that goes, like did I agree to meet the people that I have met or relationships I have had? Sometimes I find myself wondering about people I come in contact with and wonder if I chose it, then I wonder if it even works that way?? So this is my question, am I thinking of this all wrong, or do we infact make promises with other souls to come back into contact and further learn from each other??

 

[Engyo]

October -

I cannot speak with certainty about this; I can tell you what the teaching is.....

At least for those who are practicing Bodhisattvas, the Lotus Sutra states that yes, we did *in general* choose our circumstances. We did this in order to assist other beings to find the Way and teach them how to end their suffering. Because there are so many billions of beings here on earth with millions of different circumstances, examples or role models are needed in every conceivable type of circumstances in order to assist others in similar circumstances. I would have to look to find you specific chapter refernces and passages; I am not as well studied as I should be.

We are also taught that the people we are close to have been and will be connected to us in various ways throughout eternity. Those who we meet and interact with are in our lives for a variety of reasons; some of those are karmic effects, and some of these are new opportunities.

Please note that this is a very simplistic explanation and is not in any way complete or comprehensive; I am just trying to thumbnail the ideas.