What "religious spectrum" is Buddhism in?

[Breathe]

Just curious: how do other Buddhists here interpret reincarnation, specifically Hindu reincarnation?


I ask that, as usually the skandhas are used as examples and these are denied as coming back or having any self basis, yet a VERY large number of Hindus don't believe that is the case, either.

 

[LuisDantas]

You answered your question as far as I am concerned, Odion. I find it a bit odd that such a concept is called reincarnation, but it is probably due to my upbringing.

 

[AfterGlow]

I'm curious here; are you referring to "most (lay) buddhists" as being most of those you or I are likely to meet, or most in total around the world?

I'm making a few assumptions on the limited knowledge I have here, so I'm happy to accept that I'm mistaken, but I would say that most lay Buddhists the world over probably hold a concept closer to reincarnation than rebirth.
People on the internet are usually pretty clued up, but I get the impression that if one of us went to rural Thailand or Sri Lanka and told someone that their consciousness isn't reborn, instead their clinging and karma condition a new (and distinct) life, we'd likely upset them a great deal. From what I've read many lay Buddhists live in the hope that their donating to monks or praying to Bodhisattvas will grant them a better next life, not a new life conditioned by their current one, but a better life for their own selves.

 

[LuisDantas]

Most religions have "folk" versions with strong animistic/reincarnationist tendencies. Even those whose doctrine specifically forbids so.

 

[Breathe]

You answered your question as far as I am concerned, Odion. I find it a bit odd that such a concept is called reincarnation, but it is probably due to my upbringing.

Then wouldn't it mean that it was the same thing as reincarnation then?

Or should Hindus and Sikhs use rebirth too?

 

[LuisDantas]

Then wouldn't it mean that it was the same thing as reincarnation then?

Or should Hindus and Sikhs use rebirth too?

I'm not quite sure. Seems to me that what the Tibetan Lamas supposedly go through is in fact more ambitious than the Hindu conception of reincarnation, for instance.

Then again, I have no idea how much controversy there is inside the Hindu and Sikh faiths about what reincarnation entails exactly.

 

[Mind_Zenith]

Then I guess it is a good thing that Buddhism is not reincarnationist, eh?

Apologies! At my temple, we use the term "reincarnation" to refer to Buddhist "rebirth". In any case, you know the concept I'm talking about, and my point is still valid: the Buddhist concept of rebirth (if you really want to get into lexical issues) doesn't allow a totally non-supernatural view of the world, and so most Atheists would disdain the idea of Buddhism being particularly atheistic in light of this.

 

[AllMantra]

Great thread! I found the thoughts of Tathagata and Mind Zenith to be very intriguing. I like to think of the Buddhism that I practice as agnostic, though I realize that such a loose label doesn't adequately address the inquiry. I believe that the parable of the poison arrow is applicable to the God idea, quite simply implying that it doesn't really matter in the pursuit of enlightenment. I believe in my heart that the Shakyamuni loved us enough to let us believe whatever made sense to us. And sense I have been brought up around and nurtured by theism I cannot bring myself to the unequivocal conclusion of atheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Apologies! At my temple, we use the term "reincarnation" to refer to Buddhist "rebirth". In any case, you know the concept I'm talking about, and my point is still valid: the Buddhist concept of rebirth (if you really want to get into lexical issues) doesn't allow a totally non-supernatural view of the world, and so most Atheists would disdain the idea of Buddhism being particularly atheistic in light of this.

Sorry, I must disagree. IMO at least, the doctrine of interdependent origination is about as non-supernaturalist as it could possibly want to be.

 

[Mind_Zenith]

Sorry, I must disagree. IMO at least, the doctrine of interdependent origination is about as non-supernaturalist as it could possibly want to be.

I can understand how interdependent origination is non-supernatural, but the concept of the cycle of rebirth is supernatural in origin, at leas the way I have been taught it...

 

[LuisDantas]

I can understand how interdependent origination is non-supernatural, but the concept of the cycle of rebirth is supernatural in origin, at leas the way I have been taught it...

In origin, perhaps. But my understanding of it is completely naturalist. I wouldn't have much use for Buddhism if it were not naturalist, in fact.

 

[Mind_Zenith]

In origin, perhaps. But my understanding of it is completely naturalist. I wouldn't have much use for Buddhism if it were not naturalist, in fact.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree: I'm a believer in a literal rebirth, with literal realms of Devas and Asuras.

 

[LuisDantas]

You do? Then yes, we will probably have to settle for a straight disagreement.

 

[Mind_Zenith]

Replied thinking this was another thread and didn't see a delete button. Sorry!

 

[Tathagata]

Apologies! At my temple, we use the term "reincarnation" to refer to Buddhist "rebirth". In any case, you know the concept I'm talking about, and my point is still valid: the Buddhist concept of rebirth (if you really want to get into lexical issues) doesn't allow a totally non-supernatural view of the world,

Yes, actually the Buddha asserted a naturalistic rebirth and rejected any notion of a soul. See here:

Sati: "Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences."

The Buddha replied: "Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven't I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit."

-- [Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta]

and so most Atheists would disdain the idea of Buddhism being particularly atheistic in light of this.

Here's an important point. Atheism has NOTHING to say about reincarnation, rebirth, souls, or anything else but the belief in God. Atheism = nonbelief in God. That's it. Atheism is NOT the nonbelief in souls.

So when I say Buddhism is Atheistic, I do not imply that Buddhism rejects souls or the supernatural (however, I do assert so, but not because it's Atheistic). When I say Buddhism is Atheistic, all I am saying is that Buddhism rejects Gods.

.

 

[AfterGlow]

Sati: "Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences."

The Buddha replied: "Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven't I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit."

-- [Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta]

I have to wonder if this is actually a genuine quote of the Buddha's, it's unlike most of his other teachings, and completely lacks compassion for a man who is simply misguided. Calling him a fool and telling him, essentially, that he's damned, doesn't sound very enlightened.

 

[Tathagata]

I have to wonder if this is actually a genuine quote of the Buddha's, it's unlike most of his other teachings, and completely lacks compassion for a man who is simply misguided. Calling him a fool and telling him, essentially, that he's damned, doesn't sound very enlightened.

Wow... You must not have read any Buddhist scripture except the Dhammapada like most people. This kind of language is VERY common in both the Tipitaka AND the Mahayana Sutras! Seriously, read Buddhist scripture and you will see that Buddha had this attitude quite often. Almost to the point of being like Hitchens.

Btw, I gave you the source straight from scripture, so how could you deny it's legit?! It's not an unsourced quote, I gave you the reference so you can double check for yourself!

.

 

[AfterGlow]

Wow... You must not have read any Buddhist scripture except the Dhammapada like most people.

I've read bits and pieces. The repetition gets on my nerves though.

This kind of language is VERY common in both the Tipitaka AND the Mahayana Sutras! Seriously, read Buddhist scripture and you will see that Buddha had this attitude quite often. Almost to the point of being like Hitchens.

Indeed? How disappointing.

Btw, I gave you the source straight from scripture, so how could you deny it's legit?! It's not an unsourced quote, I gave you the reference so you can double check for yourself!

I know, I googled it. I wasn't questioning you, I was questioning the reliability of the scripture. A man who goes around mocking his followers for being misguided doesn't sound very wise or compassionate. Just saying.

 

[LuisDantas]

Different strokes and all that. I have little patience for some sorts of religious mistakes. Being blunt is IMO the right thing to do, particularly with reincarnation-oriented mistakes (at least with the new age understanding of the word).

There are some who see it as a harmless belief. I most emphatically disagree. It breeds lots of grave moral defects. It is, in fact, a moral disease, and not to be tolerated.

 

[Breathe]

But is that not due to the Kardecist influence from where you live, Luis?
I have no idea what they believe though, but I'm guessing (from page 3) you don't really consider other Dharmic religions to really be a culprit here, so what is it that the New Agers and such do what makes you feel they are dangerous?