|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:45 pm
Sometimes it's hard for me to accept reincarnation as literal truth. What do you guys think? Are we constantly reborn in different states of mind, or are we LITERALLY reborn?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:23 pm
I believe quite strongly in literal rebirth. I also believe quite strongly in subjective reality. So even though everyone is reborn, if they believe they go to heaven or simply fade from existence, they will. Wrap your mind around that one...
By the way, my own solution to the above is that I believe the personality becomes disconnected from the soul at death.
By the way, my answer is based on my own studies... not Buddhism, as I'm not a Buddhist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:51 am
Indeed, as reincarnation and rebirth are two separate concepts, it's difficult for me to believe in reincarnation as well. I lack a belief in a soul - I have for a lot longer than I've been Buddhist; just personal investigation lead me to that idea years ago.
Given that from moment to moment we are a new person, if only on a cellular level, or a thoughtform level, or an idea-based level, or something other than that, I have no problem with the idea of rebirth. One life ends, another arises from the karmatic path left behind. One candle snuffed, another lit with the same flame. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:11 pm
Rebirth makes perfect sense to me, logically. I mean, Dharmakirti's argument
is just logical to me. A good metaphor for his argument is to say that a rain
cloud cannot spring out of a bunch of pollen - it has to come from water. For
there to be rain, there must be a logical cause of there to be rain - and the
preceeding cause of rain is the cloud which is caused by evaporation from
another body of water. A tree springs from a seed, not from a stone or bee.
Similarly with consciousness. It doesn't make sense for consciousness to just
come out of nowhere. It makes sense to me for there to have been a
previous instance of consciousness to cause the next instance of it.
In other news: I do not believe in reincarnation, like the others who have
posted in this thread. I also reject the idea of the soul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:45 pm
I'm not a Buddhist, however, I find the idea of rebirth quite difficult to swallow which is one of the primary issues I have with the belief system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:41 am
Rebirth isn't very hard to come to terms with as a belief a priori. It's all of the trappings and preconceptions we have about it that make it hard to deal with. For example, if the term "rebirth" makes you think of "reincarnation" then you already have a misconception about the process. If rebirth is about the rebirth of an individual soul or any such nondual essence, there are going to be problems. To understand anything about it - like other Buddhist ideologies, you must first unlearn everything you know about it.
I'm very much in agreement with Nirvahara's argument. It simply doesn't make sense for a person or consciousness - to be completely general, let's say "an instance of Suchness" - to simply fade away, nor does it make sense for it to be created. It also doesn't make sense for Suchness to be static; the fact that anything in the universe moves is a testament to that fact. Since the universe as an entire entity also doesn't just disappear randomly, Suchness is clearly not entirely dynamic, either. Why wouldn't the same apply to any given "instance of Suchness"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:17 am
Swordmaster Dragon I'm very much in agreement with Nirvahara's argument. It simply doesn't make sense for a person or consciousness - to be completely general, let's say "an instance of Suchness" - to simply fade away, nor does it make sense for it to be created. It also doesn't make sense for Suchness to be static; the fact that anything in the universe moves is a testament to that fact. Since the universe as an entire entity also doesn't just disappear randomly, Suchness is clearly not entirely dynamic, either. Why wouldn't the same apply to any given "instance of Suchness"? An interesting, geeky, aside: Astrotheorists and Buddhists have reached similar conclusions: The Universe must be beginningless. Something cannot come from nothing, both say, and something cannot simply and utterly cease to exist. It's interesting that both these traditions agree on these things (among others)! I really enjoyed that post of yours, Swordmaster Dragon! biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:28 am
I'm still not sure where this idea develops that there must be some form of 'passing the flame', and why consciousness must not cease to exist upon death, which is what I find odd. When the brain stops working, the consciousness dies along with the rest of a person; I see no real reason to posit that it somehow sets itself off into the consciousness of a new born 'creating' that consciousness, nor is such a thing necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:05 pm
Upon death, does the body cease to exist? When a fire goes out, does the energy it released while it was burning cease to exist? No, they diffuse and change and move on. The idea of consciousness as only a product of the blame is rejected by Buddhism, and even neurology cannot prove that the brain is the sole reason for consciousness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:34 pm
I believe when you die you're reborn into another being, not your previous self but something new, to learn more about life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:21 am
Nirvahara Upon death, does the body cease to exist? When a fire goes out, does the energy it released while it was burning cease to exist? No, they diffuse and change and move on. The idea of consciousness as only a product of the blame is rejected by Buddhism, and even neurology cannot prove that the brain is the sole reason for consciousness. However, we have no evidence for anything else being the reason for consciousness so the brain is the most likely suspect at this point, even if we can't be completely sure. A body's energy changes into something else as it decomposes, of course, and the same with a fire, however, we do not know enough about consciousness to label consciousness itself as a form of energy, and thus, subject to the same rules. I'm a bit testy about the whole 'Well....we don't know for sure that the brain causes consciousness, so let's just say it happens to flow into another person upon birth' idea when we don't really have any sort of evidence for that occurring. gonk I suppose I prefer Stephen Batchelor's brand of Buddhism which encourages agnosticism on issues like this that we have no evidence about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:39 am
Harvested Sorrow However, we have no evidence for anything else being the reason for consciousness so the brain is the most likely suspect at this point, even if we can't be completely sure. A body's energy changes into something else as it decomposes, of course, and the same with a fire, however, we do not know enough about consciousness to label consciousness itself as a form of energy, and thus, subject to the same rules. I'm a bit testy about the whole 'Well....we don't know for sure that the brain causes consciousness, so let's just say it happens to flow into another person upon birth' idea when we don't really have any sort of evidence for that occurring. gonk His Holiness the Dalai Lama was talking about this same problem and suggested that perhaps scientific medicine will never be able to solve the problem with consciousness, since it relies exclusively on third-person observation and consciousness is, by nature, a first-person experience. It may very well be that science will have to bite the bullet and integrate first-person methods of observation into its practices, or perhaps our technology will advance significantly and we'll able to do it in a third-person method. Either way, you're right that we don't have a way to verify rebirth from a third-person method of observation, so medical science can't conlude or say with any certainty that there is a case for rebirth. Of course this also works for those who choose to believe in rebirth, as well, as they can just as easily say that even though medical science can't confirm it, it doesn't mean it never happens. I'm still of the opinion that if it's a useful idea and fits the paradigm, why not? Currently it's just a question of whether or not it's a useful idea to science and would fit within its paradigm. Phwee. Harvested Sorrow I suppose I prefer Stephen Batchelor's brand of Buddhism which encourages agnosticism on issues like this that we have no evidence about. I think that's a healthy stance. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:36 pm
What is the difference between reincarnation and rebirth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:07 pm
Nirvahara Harvested Sorrow However, we have no evidence for anything else being the reason for consciousness so the brain is the most likely suspect at this point, even if we can't be completely sure. A body's energy changes into something else as it decomposes, of course, and the same with a fire, however, we do not know enough about consciousness to label consciousness itself as a form of energy, and thus, subject to the same rules. I'm a bit testy about the whole 'Well....we don't know for sure that the brain causes consciousness, so let's just say it happens to flow into another person upon birth' idea when we don't really have any sort of evidence for that occurring. gonk His Holiness the Dalai Lama was talking about this same problem and suggested that perhaps scientific medicine will never be able to solve the problem with consciousness, since it relies exclusively on third-person observation and consciousness is, by nature, a first-person experience. It may very well be that science will have to bite the bullet and integrate first-person methods of observation into its practices, or perhaps our technology will advance significantly and we'll able to do it in a third-person method. Either way, you're right that we don't have a way to verify rebirth from a third-person method of observation, so medical science can't conlude or say with any certainty that there is a case for rebirth. Of course this also works for those who choose to believe in rebirth, as well, as they can just as easily say that even though medical science can't confirm it, it doesn't mean it never happens. I'm still of the opinion that if it's a useful idea and fits the paradigm, why not? Currently it's just a question of whether or not it's a useful idea to science and would fit within its paradigm. Phwee. Harvested Sorrow I suppose I prefer Stephen Batchelor's brand of Buddhism which encourages agnosticism on issues like this that we have no evidence about. I think that's a healthy stance. 3nodding Personally, I'm betting my money on psychology and neuroscience making their way toward solving the consciousness problem. Fair enough. I'm unable to take one's word for it personally, however, as long as it isn't forced as a religious view on people I'm fine with others believing in it. I only tend to focus on things that are harmful to people when taken on faith and this particular belief doesn't strike me as harmful...or quite so far out there as to lead to beliefs that could be harmful to others, unless someone got the weird idea of 'rebirth means I can do whatever I want in this life since I'll have more'....which would make no sense anyway considering the karma system in place. And by 'quite so far out there' I mean there's a case of a lack of evidence rather than plugging one's ears upon hearing evidence against it. ninja To throw out an example: There's a large degree of difference between say...the amount of faith that would have to be put in the idea of rebirth and that of believing the Earth is 6000 years old or less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:37 am
Isthene
What is the difference between reincarnation and rebirth?
Reincarnation is the belief that you have a soul or some divine essence that is continuously put into new bodies each lifetime. That you have some immortal, indestructible core self that transfers from life to life. Rebirth rejects the idea of the soul and adopts the view that no composite thing is permanent, but its constituent elements are neither created nor destroyed, but are in a constant state of change. A lake becomes a cloud becomes snow becomes a glacier, then melts into a river and flows into a lake again. There is no core essence of that water that is being transfered from the body of the lake into the body of the cloud, there is just a continuous flow of "water".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
