Do you believe in reincarnation or rebirth?

[Gambit]

Darn right I do not. And I don't have any degree of sympathy for the very concept, either. It is incredibly suspect, surprisingly contradictory, and rather dangerous.

It is, in essence, claiming that something that we know not to be true must somehow be true anyway.

Do you believe in the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you believe in the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth?

Sure. But just like anything in Dharma as I understand it to be, I interpret it to the best of my abilities. And when I do, I do not see it as anything at all supernatural.

And it is Buddhist doctrine, which means that it does not adhere to the idea of an atman or soul.

Rebirth does not use "name labels" of any kind. People do not get reborn. They are just way too complex, way too reliant on circunstances to even exist as such, for the idea to make any sense to me. It is instead their karma that gets reborn, affecting other people.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

IOW, God's self is the only individual who is actually reincarnating. Right?

That's right

 

[outhouse]

NO.

And there is not a shred of credible evidence to suggest any ancient mythology is correct in this aspect.

First you must posit that a soul exist, and to date, they do not exist outside mythology.

 

[Gambit]

Sure.

I see. You accept the concept of rebirth, but (vehemently) reject that concept of reincarnation.

But just like anything in Dharma as I understand it to be, I interpret it to the best of my abilities. And when I do, I do not see it as anything at all supernatural.

Why exactly is the doctrine of rebirth more naturalistic (or less supernaturalistic) than the doctrine of reincarnation?

And it is Buddhist doctrine, which means that it does not adhere to the idea of an atman or soul.

Or, one could argue that the Buddhists simply understand the soul to be an individual "mind-stream" and that this mind-stream continues indefinitely.

Also, some (if not most) forms of Buddhism definitely subscribe to the doctrine of the Atman (an absolute "Self").

 

[George-ananda]

I see. You accept the concept of rebirth, but (vehemently) reject that concept of reincarnation.

Just to get you up to speed gambit, there is a strong contingent of Buddhists here that are also materialists. So they believe in annihilation of individual consciousness at death. Rebirth, as it is generally understood, is not what they accept. At best they believe rebirth means your actions ripple on to effect other lives.

I'm just posting this to speed up your learning curve, Gambit. It took me awhile to get what they were saying.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see. You accept the concept of rebirth, but (vehemently) reject that concept of reincarnation.

Exactly. You think that is unusual? You are mistaken. This is an old, sometimes incensed disagreement between Hinduism and Buddhism.

Why exactly is the doctrine of rebirth more naturalistic (or less supernaturalistic) than the doctrine of reincarnation?

Because it is karma - impersonal karma - that manifests through rebirth, not some sort of soul.

Or, one could argue that the Buddhists simply understand the soul to be an individual "mind-stream" and that this mind-stream continues indefinitely.

One certainly could, if one failed to understand Buddhist doctrine.

Also, some (if not most) forms of Buddhism definitely subscribe to the doctrine of the Atman (an absolute "Self").

I see those as misguided.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just to get you up to speed gambit, there is a strong contingent of Buddhists here that are also materialists. So they believe in annihilation of individual consciousness at death. Rebirth, as it is generally understood, is not what they accept. At best they believe rebirth means your actions ripple on to effect other lives.

I'm just posting this to speed up your learning curve, Gambit. It took me awhile to get what they were saying.

That is correct - by certain definitions of materialism, at least.

 

[Gambit]

Just to get you up to speed gambit, there is a strong contingent of Buddhists here that are also materialists. So they believe in annihilation of individual consciousness at death. Rebirth, as it is generally understood, is not what they accept. At best they believe rebirth means your actions ripple on to effect other lives.

I'm just posting this to speed up your learning curve, Gambit. It took me awhile to get what they were saying.

Thanks.

 

[Gambit]

Exactly. You think that is unusual? You are mistaken. This is an old, sometimes incensed disagreement between Hinduism and Buddhism.

The difference between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta appears to be semantical, not metaphysical.

Because it is karma - impersonal karma - that manifests through rebirth, not some sort of soul.

I believe all the Dharmic religions subscribe to the doctrine of karma. It certainly is not unique to Buddhism.

One certainly could, if one failed to understand Buddhist doctrine.

It would appear that you are the one who does not understand the Buddhist doctrine.

Citta-saṃtāna (Sanskrit), literally "the stream of mind",[1] is the stream of succeeding moments of mind or awareness. It provides a continuity of the personality in the absence of a permanently abiding "self" (ātman), which Buddhism denies. The mindstream provides a continuity from one life to another, akin to the flame of a candle which may be passed from one candle to another:[2][3][note 1]

(source: Wikipedia: Mindstream)

I see those as misguided.

I'm suspect they would say the same about you,

 

[LuisDantas]

The difference between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta appears to be semantical, not metaphysical.

That is probably a bit of an over-simplification, but I figure the two doctrines do in practice intersect fairly often.

I believe all the Dharmic religions subscribe to the doctrine of karma. It certainly is not unique to Buddhism.

Of course, but what it means and how it is treated do vary quite a lot.

There would be less confusion if the various religions used different words, but that is not how it turned out. Even spiritism talks a lot about "karma", despite their concept being a full travesty of any dharmic concept.

It would appear that you are the one who does not understand the Buddhist doctrine.

There are those who think so.

I can't be bothered to care. I do not third-party my beliefs and I do not give space to conceptions I find foolish.

I'm suspect they would say the same about you,

I suppose they have no choice, unless they decide to question their beliefs.

 

[allfoak]

Job ii. 9: "And I am a wanderer, changing place after place and house after house."

Rebirth and reincarnation are really kind of inadequate to describe the continuity of life.

From the Alpha of ignorance to the Omega of perfection is the journey of the human soul.
The changes that occur are as a step through the looking glass.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Darn right I do not. And I don't have any degree of sympathy for the very concept, either. It is incredibly suspect, surprisingly contradictory, and rather dangerous.

It is, in essence, claiming that something that we know not to be true must somehow be true anyway.

Claiming something we know is not true, is true?
Who is this we?

 

[Gambit]

NO.

And there is not a shred of credible evidence to suggest any ancient mythology is correct in this aspect.

Actually, there is some credible reincarnation research that has been conducted.

 

[LuisDantas]

Claiming something we know is not true, is true?
Who is this we?

We who do not exist as inheritors of deceased people's identities.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, there is some credible reincarnation research that has been conducted.

Ian Stevenson's research is considered convincing by many, that much is true.

That is certainly evidence of how badly many people want to believe in reincarnation, as well as of how difficult it is to be objective with such a subject. Arguably also of how easy it is to underestimate the challenges of reaching reliable conclusions on research when the basic concepts and statistical methodology are not well defined.

As Stevenson himself admits, with very good reason (source):

Dr. Stevenson had accepted that his long-stated goal of getting science "to seriously consider reincarnation as a possibility" was not going to be realized in this lifetime.

That people always end up returning to his work as a reference, despite the undying worldwide interest in confirming it and a 1996 statement by Carl Sagan that it "deserved serious study" - which is to say, that further, independent, separate research would be necessary to confirm or refute its conclusions - is evidence that his work, published between 1966 and 2003, can't be confirmed particularly easily, quickly or reliably.

And yes, independent confirmation is very much an indispensable necessity for it to have scientific credibility, as any serious researcher will tell you.

There are many people who say that such confirmation did not yet come out of a lack of interest or even outright bias from the qualified researchers worldwide. Lack of interest is one way of putting it, I suppose.

But it seems to me that a far simpler explanation is most likely to be true. Perhaps I am just jaded after seeing the extent to which people will go to make certain statements in the discussions about Creationism, who knows.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We who do not exist as inheritors of deceased people's identities.

Ah...your beliefs are fine, but unfortunately in error, there is no such cosmic process as 'inheritors of deceased people's identities".

 

[LuisDantas]

Ah...your beliefs are fine, but unfortunately in error, there is no such cosmic process as 'inheritors of deceased people's identities".

Did you think I believed there was? I do not.

 

[outhouse]

Actually, there is some credible reincarnation research that has been conducted.

Perceived as credible.

But it is not credible in any way shape or form.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Rebirth seems more feaseable to me.