Is rebirth essential to Buddhism?

[Osal]

There is no need to "intrude", in my experience people are generally quite vocal on this issue. If you aren't interested, that's fine, but not everyone is the same as you.

Of course not. I totally get that.

I find that the number of people who are vocal on the subject, are quite few when compared to the large number of Buddhists out there, and then, they are largely confined to online forums such as this one.

Not something I personally take much stock in.

There are far more important things to consider, such as practice leading to awakening. My best Buddhist friend and I never discuss such things. We actually talk more about Pickleball these days.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram luis ji

welcome back , ....

it is still a composite word from "Maha" and "Yana", where "Maha" means "great / noble" and "Yana" means "(religious) path".

@Carlita ji , ....

"Maha" meaning Great , ....."Yana" meaning Vehicle , ...that which caries , transports , ...in this case transports one from cyclic existance , ....

noble would be ; mahasaya ,as meaning respected person , .. mahanubhava , nomle as in high minded , ...or ...'Arya' , ...as in noble eight fold path , ...ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo , (āryāṣṭāṅgamārga ...sanskrit ) 'AryA' ; noble , ....'aSTAGga' ;eight fold ........'mArga' ; path

one on a noble path , ...kalyanavartman , .....

@Spiny Norman ji , .....on the question of rebirth , ..

Is rebirth essential an essential aspect of the Buddha's teaching, or just skillful means as suggested by Stephen Batchelor?

Is a belief in rebirth a requirement for effective Buddhist practice?

esential ?.......... to me yes without it Buddhism would lack what l see as its true perspective , ..

a requirement for Buddhist practice ? .....for the preliminaries of meditation and ethcal behavior (secular Buddhism) prehaps not, .....but for moksha , liberation from the cycle of birth and death , ...one has to realse the nature of cyclic existance .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram ji

My observation was based on personal experience of a wide range of Buddhist schools in the UK since 1980. I haven't done a survey or anything but if I had to guess I'd say roughly 25% believe in rebirth, 50% are agnostic and 25% reject it. Something like that.

gosh , trying to think back , ...yes l'd probably agreeat least 50 % hadnt realy got as far as thinking about rebirth but many had an inkling that life was more than just this , ....me ? ..... l had a gut reaction for as long as l can remember that there was definatly more than this one worldly existance , ..even as a child , ...l used to talk about it with my Nana , ...the thought just seemed normal .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram ji ,

I don't even care why, really. I have a hunch, based on the psychology, sociology and anthropology I studied in college. To delve any further, I think, is pointless and unneccessarily intrusive. Like I said, I don't care what they believe, so why would I care about why they believe it?

in a way l can see this point , ....one either realises something or one dosent , ...to me it is not about beleif it is about knowing , ...sometimes when we know or realise something , or even the posibility of something , ...what others think is relitively unimportant , ...

personaly l think it (rebirth or memory of ...) is something that we will all experience at some point , so untill that point happens another person isnt going to realise something by my telling them , they have to realise it for them selves , ..it has to become a personal experience .

 

[Aupmanyav]

Fingers slip. Is it a separation between Maha yana? I never seen it separated like that (at least from the scriptures I read from) Is it Mahayana or Maha yana?

I parsed the two words that make it up to explain, that is why.

Rebirth: Not all people to whom Buddha talked could have understood what Buddha knew, that is why the 'normal' Hindu type of re-birth teaching. Of course, that is not the only way more philosophical Hindus know it.

 

[psychoslice]

Who is being reborn, the ego, the mind which we are not ?.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Rebirth: Not all people to whom Buddha talked could have understood what Buddha knew, that is why the 'normal' Hindu type of re-birth teaching.

That's pretty much Stephen Batchelor's idea. On the other hand would a teacher of the Buddha's stature really have made stuff up just to reach a wider audience? It would be rather like a modern humanist writer continually referring to "God", despite being an atheist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I find that the number of people who are vocal on the subject, are quite few when compared to the large number of Buddhists out there, and then, they are largely confined to online forums such as this one.

We discussed rebirth recently at my local sangha. 50% were agnostic, 50% were sceptical. Attitudes are going to vary according to school and local culture of course.

Personally I'm agnostic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It would be rather like a modern humanist writer continually referring to "God", despite being an atheist.

I too think that Buddha's position was like that. Buddha with his stance on Anatta was smarter than that.

 

[crossfire]

My observation was based on personal experience of a wide range of Buddhist schools in the UK since 1980. I haven't done a survey or anything but if I had to guess I'd say roughly 25% believe in rebirth, 50% are agnostic and 25% reject it. Something like that.

I don't think there can be any disputing the rebirth of dukkha when unarisen fermentations arise. That would be the conclusion if you leave out any view of being or non being out of it and follow the dukkha instead. (This is dukkha, this is how dukkha arises, this is how dukkha ceases, this is the way that dukkha ceases.)

Dukkha is reborn from the fermentations that arise when one attends to self views or no-self views.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I too think that Buddha's position was like that. Buddha with his stance on Anatta was smarter than that.

Hmm. There were lots of different views around at the Buddha's time, so while reincarnation would have been the most common view it wasn't the only one, and people wouldn't have been worried about challenging it. From the suttas the Buddha comes across as a confident character who debated with kings, nobles and priests, not somebody who would have been worried about pleasing an audience.

And are you saying the Buddha taught rebirth when he didn't believe it? This seems rather incongruous given that he taught Right Speech and emphasised the importance of honest communication. It makes the Buddha look like a hypocrite, "do as I say, not as I do".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't think there can be any disputing the rebirth of dukkha when unarisen fermentations arise.

Sure, but the question here is about the traditional notion of rebirth, beings reborn in different realms according to their actions. Rebirth as reincarnation without the atman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. not somebody who would have been worried about pleasing an audience.

Buddha's real message was about the Eight-fold path, it was about 'dhamma'. It was not about pleasing anybody or rebirth, which was unimportant for him. Even when he is talking about rebirth, he is emphasizing the importance of the correct path. It was a 'kusal' attempt to push the 'dhamma wheel'.

 

[crossfire]

Sure, but the question here is about the traditional notion of rebirth, beings reborn in different realms according to their actions.

Well, to risk the arising of unarisen fermentations: isn't this the fuel the fire craves and clings to? What kinds of craving fire are produced by beings, and what sort of fuel do these cravings seek and cling to? Does the addiction die with the junkie? Some addictive behavior seems to be able to be transmitted between beings like a communicable disease.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html
"Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful.[2] In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

<...>

"And what are the five clinging-aggregates that, in short, are stressful? The clinging-aggregate of form, the clinging-aggregate of feeling, the clinging-aggregate of perception, the clinging-aggregate of fabrications, the clinging-aggregate of consciousness: These are called the five clinging-aggregates that, in short, are stressful.

"This, friends, is called the noble truth of stress.​

 

[crossfire]

What sends a group of sharks or crocodiles into a feeding frenzy? Is it the aggregrate, or the "herd mentality," or both, or neither? (I'm reaching for the aspirin as I type....)

 

[crossfire]

What sends a group of sharks or crocodiles into a feeding frenzy? Is it the aggregrate, or the "herd mentality," or both, or neither? (I'm reaching for the aspirin as I type....)

Now that I've thrown myself into the realm of mental anguish, I might as well revisit Nagarjuna in regards to the above question as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hmm. There were lots of different views around at the Buddha's time, so while reincarnation would have been the most common view it wasn't the only one, and people wouldn't have been worried about challenging it. From the suttas the Buddha comes across as a confident character who debated with kings, nobles and priests, not somebody who would have been worried about pleasing an audience.

And are you saying the Buddha taught rebirth when he didn't believe it? This seems rather incongruous given that he taught the precept on right speech and emphasised the importance of honest communication. It makes the Buddha look like a hypocrite, "do as I say, not as I do".

I wonder why one would suspect the Buddha of not believing in rebirth. It is just an alegorical teaching, and imo rather blatantly so. It is rather silly when one attempts to "believe' in it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Buddha's real message was about the Eight-fold path, it was about 'dhamma'. It was not about pleasing anybody or rebirth, which was unimportant for him. Even when he is talking about rebirth, he is emphasizing the importance of the correct path. It was a 'kusal' attempt to push the 'dhamma wheel'.

So in your view the Buddha taught rebirth without personally believing it? He made it up because it was a convenient vehicle for his "real" teaching?

In the suttas the Buddha is described as remembering his past lives just prior to enlightenment - of course the sceptics argue that this stuff was added in later. Who knows?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I wonder why one would suspect the Buddha of not believing in rebirth. It is just an alegorical teaching, and imo rather blatantly so.

But what are you actually basing that interpretation on? In the sutta similes are clearly identified as such.

Can you reference any suttas that support your claim?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html
"Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful.[2] In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
​

​

In the suttas birth and death are consistently described as physical rather than psychological events, which does seem to seriously undermine a purely "psychological" interpretation of rebirth and dependent origination.

The inclusion of birth in the first Noble Truth also seems incongruous with a "moment-to-moment" interpretation of rebirth, which is only concerned with the suffering of ageing and death.