No Buddhism without Hinduism

[Wannabe Yogi]

For example, even the Buddha in His Suttas demonstrates (in His view) the absurdity of reincarnation as it is popularly conceived.

Let me start by saying I am not a Buddhist so I am sure that have a very incomplete understanding of Buddhist Philosophy. With that said this is my take on reincarnation in Buddhism.

From what I understand the early Buddhist scriptures make it clear that there is no permanent person that moves from life to life. In fact we are not the same person from one moment to the next. The Lord Buddha taught a distinct concept of rebirth constrained by the idea that there is no self, but there is a stream consciousness from the deceased to the new person. At the time of death of one personality, a new one comes into being, just like flame of a dying candle can light the flame of a new candle.

The important thing to remember is that reincarnation is driven by karma. All we need to know about karma can be found in the Dhammapada in the following words, "All that we are is a result of what we have thought, it is founded on our thoughts and made up of our thoughts."


If we have good pure thoughts and actions at some point we will go beyond our Ego's and experience Truth as it is. This is the goal to get beyond reincarnation in both Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

[Satsangi]

The Lord Buddha taught a distinct concept of rebirth constrained by the idea that there is no self, but there is a stream consciousness from the deceased to the new person. At the time of death of one personality, a new one comes into being, just like flame of a dying candle can light the flame of a new candle.

The Hinduism concept of Atman, although translated as Self in English, has no characteristics that are defined (and can be eaily misunderstood as ego); it is pure consciousness. The Vasanas (strong desires) which go along with the Atman are responsible for rebirths. Adi Shankara said that the Atman was the Consciousness or Brahman. While Shri Ramanuja and others saw this "Atman+ Vasana" taking births as a discrete Jeeva. Again, these are just two angles to look at the SAME phenomenon, in my opinion.

But, I happen to believe clearly that there are individual Jeevas who take births on their journey to liberation as per the karmic fruits given by the God and this journey need not necessarily be a straight "progressive" line. (The dogs, monkeys and other creatures might be thinking that they are the "higher" births and the human is the lowest of the lows..........lol)

Regards,

 

[Cosmos]

You are accurate concerning the Neti Neti philosophy. In regards to Samyutta-nikaya, the Buddha said it all and does not need too much interpretation, as He was clear on the matter that without the association of Consciousness (Vijnana) with the "corporeal organism" than there is no process of Coming and Going (Rebirth) at all. The Law of Karma (i.e. Causation) is universal and has corresponding effects on the physical and spiritual levels and by no means did I attempt to disregard kamma. Again, it is only when we do not study with a spiritual eye that we get mixed up as to what deities represent or mean. Ghandarva is obviously a spirit of inspiration that can be associated with ancestral spirits, Brahmana deities (Qualities and Attributes of God), or class occupation, say, when you need a muse to inspire one's work.

Is Gita Chapter 7 Verse 26 truly mistranslated or is that a particular scholar's emphasized interpretation? Keep in mind that at least in the English the proposed translation you gave, Satsangi, would not make logical sense as the whole entire premise for justice and mercy in the reincarnation theory is based upon cognizance of one's past actions--both the Buddha and Krishna are crystal clear on this--so if the vast majority of anyone cannot recollect (I certainly cannot nor anyone I've ever met) their past lives, including brahmans and sages according to historic narratives between Dharma masters, then how can literal physical rebirth be implied here? Krishna is omniscient, so of course He would know all beings/births, but by nature of reason since we are not aware of anything prior to this existence, we are doomed to an unjust cycle. Know that my opinions are not to attack the beliefs of others here in this forum, but I am criticising the traditions of Brahmanism, as no one can deny the corruption wrought by this priestcraft in misinterpreting the essence of the Vedas on many occassions throughout history. So, no, the Brahmans, in my opinion, know no more whereof they speak on many matters anymore than Christian ministers know what they're talking about when they so confidently claim to know who does and does not get to go to heaven.

Please read the examples given several times, as I nor the speaker (the Buddha) are confused upon the context spoken. The Buddha clearly and explicitly discounted Brahmanic concepts of reincarnation on several occassions over several discourses from His interpretation of the Vedas, which would be staying true with the essence of Krishna's Message. It is up to the reader to research this and come up with this conclusion on their own from careful rendering of the language and context used. Even the Jains admitted to no knowledge of any actual reincarnation even though they espouse its doctrine, nor any brahaman who came in contact with the Tathagata! I'd also like to correct you, brother Satsangi, in that it is not the primitive ancestors who liberate us today... no... but the Divine Manifestation of God (Avatara); also, I stand by what I said concerning the perversity and infectious corruption of philosophies introduced by men.

 

[Cosmos]

If we have good pure thoughts and actions at some point we will go beyond our Ego's and experience Truth as it is. This is the goal to get beyond reincarnation in both Hinduism and Buddhism.

:clap:yes:

You're so dead on when you make note that the most important aspect of Rebirth as a doctrine in the Buddha's Dharma is that it is a moment-to-moment phenomenon even Here and Now in this very life!

Both in Buddhism and Hinduism the true Self is expressed as non-corporeal and as non-ego. However, the Buddha denies the atman ('self') as the skandhas or aggregates that compose our corporeal consciousness and describes vijnana or Soul-Mind as Self (Soul). I think the theological distinction is that when we're dealing psychologically with the sense of "I" (Ego) there are a strata of dimensions to human consciousness with what we probably percieve as the highest being the superego or ID, which potentially involves superconsciousness or awakened awareness that most of us rarely, if at all, experience during waking, conscious life experience, though the Atman probably means in essence the same as Vijnana in essence. For example, it is often the very 'sense' of "I" that is the illusory selfish nature of our being, rather than the Supreme Self that encapsulates all and which everything else circumambulates in the spirals of consciousness.

 

[Satsangi]

Friend Cosmos,

I agreed with the quote from Samyukta-nikaya and that is consistent with the Jada- Chaitanya principle of HInduism. Consciousness is chaitanya and the rest of the organism is Jada and without the Chaitanya principle, there is no birth or aging or misery as there is no life itself.

The translation of BG VII-26 is not from any particular school of thought, but as I understand. You say that the cognizance of past actions are a must- I do not understand that well- I am not knowledgeable about Lord Buddha, but where did Lord Krishna say that in order for you to be have the fruits in this life of the karmas done in previous births, you should be cognizant of those karmas NOW in this life? The quote from BG that you have quoted is not in that context for sure.

It is not necessary that only the Avatar knows the past births. There is a Siddhi described in the Yoga where one can know the past (including past births), present and future; in other words be Omniscient like Lord Krishna.

I am not refuting that there were things which came out of ignorance from the Brahmins at that time; but I disagree that reincarnation is one of them. Reincarnation is very clearly mentioned in the Bhagvad Gita at the very least- you can read any of the standard Acharya's explanation.

Further, you are trying to explain the Sanatana Dharma concepts from a Buddhist or Jain's view. Is it not possible that the current expalnations of Lord Mahavira and Lord Buddha's teaching by the contemporary "Jain and Buddhist Brahmins" are skewed?

What I am trying to say is that do you have anyone else within the vast army of the Siddhas in the Sanatana Dharma itself to support your view?

The Avataras are definitely the cause of liberation; but the Vedas were supposed to have been revealed to the Rishis by the Lord Himself and then transmitted orally only through generations. These Rishis were our "primitive ancestors" as you can ask many Hindus- what is their "Gotra" and the name would be of a Rishi.

Regards,

 

[Satsangi]

:clap:yes:

You're so dead on when you make note that the most important aspect of Rebirth as a doctrine in the Buddha's Dharma is that it is a moment-to-moment phenomenon even Here and Now in this very life!

Both in Buddhism and Hinduism the true Self is expressed as non-corporeal and as non-ego. However, the Buddha denies the atman ('self') as the skandhas or aggregates that compose our corporeal consciousness and describes vijnana or Soul-Mind as Self (Soul). I think the theological distinction is that when we're dealing psychologically with the sense of "I" (Ego) there are a strata of dimensions to human consciousness with what we probably percieve as the highest being the superego or ID, which potentially involves superconsciousness or awakened awareness that most of us rarely, if at all, experience during waking, conscious life experience, though the Atman probably means in essence the same as Vijnana in essence. For example, it is often the very 'sense' of "I" that is the illusory selfish nature of our being, rather than the Supreme Self that encapsulates all and which everything else circumambulates in the spirals of consciousness.

I agree with the above fully except that Vijnana cannot be totally equal to Atman if Vijnana is "mind-soul" complex (I am not sure what is Vijnana and am going by friend Cosmos's explanation).

Regards,

 

[Madhuri]

The Hinduism concept of Atman, although translated as Self in English, has no characteristics that are defined (and can be eaily misunderstood as ego); it is pure consciousness. The Vasanas (strong desires) which go along with the Atman are responsible for rebirths. Adi Shankara said that the Atman was the Consciousness or Brahman. While Shri Ramanuja and others saw this "Atman+ Vasana" taking births as a discrete Jeeva. Again, these are just two angles to look at the SAME phenomenon, in my opinion.

Regards,

My understanding is that the Atman is pure consciousness, part of the Brahman, but also distinct. This individual is part of the Lord's marginal potency, which is where vasana comes in, as we are divided by nature between the spiritual existence and material desires.

Hopefully I explained that correctly

 

[Cosmos]

Well, to keep us out of an argument, I will say I can only agree that the Upanishads and the Gita speak on Rebirth, which is an aspect but distinct from ancient concepts of reincarnation that still persist.

My whole thesis is that the religions of God teach transcendentalism and physical rebirth has nothing to do with transcendental nature. Also, no one is omniscient as Lord Krishna or any Divine Manifestation of God, otherwise there would be no need for Them, and anyone could make the claim of being equal to a god. In fact, the word siddhi DOES NOT equate or mean in any sense of the word omniscience, but denotes a special capability developed, and means "perfection", "accomplishment", "attainment", "success"; see siddhas, which represents the "upright ones" who have disciplined themselves in cultivating spiritual insight and powers.

To clarify again the dimensions distinguishing Atman from Vijnana, it is important to re-read my post in how I described it. In respect to the dimensions of the ego there is what we psychologically describe as the superego or ID that at times with discipline can manifest as superconsciousness/hyperconsciousness, which is the Soul-Mind the Buddha described. Atman is essentially the same but the word itself meaning "self" can also have limited aspects of the skandhas to it that the Buddha wished to do away with immediately. Keep in mind that the Buddha expanded Vedic concepts and language to whole new dimensions.

Relating back to the siddhi complex, my understanding is that this prowess allows recognition of past rebirths, which today in modern psychology (influenced by Vedic-Buddhist philosophies) has described as the phases of psyche every human being naturally undergoes, from infancy to childhood, to adolescence and adulthood, to seniority and death stages; also related in the Bible as the 7 year cycle (of 12). Again, the importance is on the Mind (Citta), being the essence of the rational soul and not the body. A deeper question to consider is thus: Could not Brahmanic interpretation of scripture, in fact, be skewed, as Mahavira and the Buddha came to refresh and give birth to a new Dharma that has evolved?

Dear, brother Satsangi, upon investigating the etymon of Satsang I come to find its root cognitive for an essence or issuance ("Sons of Brahma") as manasputras ("born from the mind") of Brahma. Again--the MIND is the prime feature of reality and consciousness! This is my focus, and not the body, but the mind-body. In my humble opinion this is what the Divine Educators were focused upon and nothing more or less. Satsang also means "eternal" or "Eternal Dharma", and again, when we focus upon the dimensions of the Mind-Soul we realize that only through this evolutive process can we find liberation and salvation.

My most logical explanation for the Rishis is that one aspect is that they are a coded symbol for the Stars of the 7 Eons (7 Rishis) that were known to the priest-astronomers who would have been the seer sages recording the Vedas, so their states of higher-consciousness were dealing with abstract thought where we derive our sciences and philosopies today. As I've posited in other threads, I believe, along with other Baha'i comparitive religion scholars, that according to the historic composition of the Vedas (1000 BC) that their inspiration comes from previous Avatars (Manifestations of God) in history at some point and that their tradition stems from a continuous lineage--and Krishna testifies to this when He describes previous Teachers (such as Rama or Vishnu) and says that the Dharma is eternal and unchanging. To be fair, it must be observed that the appearence of the Rishis and the Rig-Vedas date to the exact time of the Advent of Krishna (approximately 1200 BC), though most are not truly certain as to His historic appearence. We base our knowledge from comparing the acknowledged timeline of the Vedas with discoveries in the Giza Pyramids, which we believe to actually be a "book in stone" in fact mentioned in the OT Bible and chronologically narrates the advent of every Messenger of God with accuracy.

Peace and Blessings from the Most High

 

[zenzero]

Friend Cosmos,

Buddha expanded Vedic concepts and language to whole new dimensions.

Agree that Gautama turned the *dharma* wheel forward and that which is *sanatan*.

Satsang also means "eternal" or "Eternal Dharma",

The word is spelt wrongly it is *sanatan* and not *satsang* which means

Satsang (Sanskrit sat = true, sanga = company) is in Indian philosophy (1) the company of the "highest truth," (2) the company of a guru, or (3) company with an assembly of persons who listen to, talk about, and assimilate the truth.[1] This typically involves listening to or reading scriptures, reflecting on, discussing and assimilating their meaning, meditating on the source of these words, and bringing their meaning into one’s daily life. Contemporary spiritual teachers in the West frequently come from the East but can come from any part of the world.

in Other words *SANGHA* as per Gautama's language.

To be fair, it must be observed that the appearence of the Rishis and the Rig-Vedas date to the exact time of the Advent of Krishna (approximately 1200 BC)

This is not necessary as here the mind is working to prove something and that is futile as *dharma* is eternal or *sanatan* i.e. existing even before the advent of human through evolution and now we are part of that specie.

Love & rgds

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I agree with the above fully except that Vijnana cannot be totally equal to Atman if Vijnana is "mind-soul" complex (I am not sure what is Vijnana and am going by friend Cosmos's explanation).

Regards,

My understanding of Vijnana that it's a state of consciousness.

When one has seen "God" he has attained jnana or knowledge. That is a part of Him/Her as long as they live.

Vijnana is when you go beyond both knowledge and ignorance.

The Jnani has seen the milk and knows it exists. The Vijnani has drank the milk and it has become a part of Him. Maybe it has more then one meaning.

 

[Satsangi]

Friend Wannabeyogi,

Jnana literally translated is to "know". The knowledge of even God for us is in 3 ways- through Indriyas, through Anthakarana and the knowledge through the Jeeva. Only one who has all the three is a full Jnani in my opinion. When one has acquired Jnana of God by all three modes, it is the highest and nothing beyond it- when you have all three modes of Jnana, you have already drank and digested too ....lol.

Regards,

 

[Satsangi]

Friend Cosmos,

I came across this link in another thread and was posted by friend Zenzero. Kindly read and it explains how one can know his past births just like Lord Krishna.

Yoga Nidra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards,

 

[Cosmos]

To relate and emphasize my thesis from a Buddhist point of view I wish to bring to attention Saddharmapundarika XV, 1 (268-272)--it being too long to narrate properly so please read it on your own time and meditate upon it. Here the Buddha admits openly and candidly that His assertions of past lives is a spiritual allegory meant only to teach spiritual truths, affirming that He does not speak falsehood but that His medium of conversing varies in capacity from individual to individual, and as Christ relied upon parables. This teaching from Siddhartha Gautama I perceive as staying true to the Dharmic/Vedic traditions in their essence and all the teachings of the Buddha-Avatars.

I would agree, Yogi, that Vijnana is a state or rather a quality of consciousness in its purest and most liberated condition as the superconsiousness/hyperconsciousness of the unbounded ego (i.e. non-ego) that is the true Self (Atman) the Buddha tried to expand upon as the divines and people of the era conceived the Supreme Self with attributes of the lower self (lower case atman) which are finite and corporeal.

Thank you for the correction, Zenzero.

 

[Satsangi]

Friend Cosmos,

I read the entire translation of Saddharmapundarika chapter 15; could not find that reincarnation is allegory. Lord Buddha talks about His being in the countless Kotis since ages and numerous Boddhisattvas in the world. Would appreciate if you can post a more direct link.

Out of all the Seers in Sanatana Dharma (and there are plenty well known even in near past), none to my knowledge has said reincarnation is allegory.

Regards,

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Just to clarify any ambiguity between the two views expressed here in this thread bring out 2 paras from wiki:

Rebirth in Buddhism is the doctrine that the evolving consciousness (Pali: samvattanika-viññana)[1][2] or stream of consciousness (Pali: viññana-sotam,[3] Sanskrit: vijñāna-srotām, vijñāna-santāna, or citta-santāna) upon death (or "the dissolution of the aggregates" (P. khandhas, S. skandhas)), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new aggregation. The consciousness in the new person is neither identical to nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream.
In traditional Buddhist cosmology these lives can be in any of a large number of states of being including the human, any kind of animal and several types of supernatural being (see Six realms). Rebirth is conditioned by the karmas (actions of body, speech and mind) of previous lives; good karmas will yield a happier rebirth, bad karmas will produce one which is more unhappy. The basic cause for this is the abiding of consciousness in ignorance (Pali: avijja, Sanskrit: avidya): when ignorance is uprooted, rebirth ceases. One of the analogies used to describe what happens then is that of a ray of light that never lands.[4]

The Buddhist concept of reincarnation differs from others in that there is no eternal "soul", "spirit' or self" but only a "stream of consciousness" that links life with life. The actual process of change from one life to the next is called punarbhava (Sanskrit) or punabbhava (Pāli), literally "becoming again", or more briefly bhava, "becoming", and some English-speaking Buddhists prefer the term "rebirth" or "re-becoming" to render this term as they take "reincarnation" to imply a fixed entity that is reborn.[9] Popular Jain cosmology and Buddhist cosmology as well as a number of schools of Hinduism posit rebirth in many worlds and in varied forms. In Buddhist tradition the process occurs across five or six realms of existence,[10] including the human, any kind of animal and several types of supernatural being. It is said in Tibetan Buddhism that it is very rare for a person to be reborn in the immediate next life as a human[11]

Personal understanding is that there is no major philosophical differences between what was existing before Gautama and his interpretation in as much as rebirth or reincarnation is concerned except that he avoided use of too many labels like soul/spirit/self but stuck to the basics which is *consciousness* and agree with him that more the words used means more the falsification or misunderstandings by human minds [evident everywhere]
In as much also agree that Gautama evolved the dharma wheel and Boddhisdharma evolved it further by focusing only on the most basic aspect of *dharma* that is each individual is nothing but consciousness and only the perception is faulty which needs to be cleared by understanding and practice.
Personal understanding is that scriptures could be used as allegories/verifications of personal experiences with those of other meditators available in written form, though other direct forms are available to those who can tap those resources within.
Love & rgds

 

[Devotee]

I know this is off topic, so sorry. But...

Question: Why is it that Buddha says that nothing is perminant but in Mahayana Buddhism they talk about Consciousness still existing in Nirvana? Now sure, that consciousness changes, but overall its still there and always has been, sense in Buddhism samsara has been around sense time unknown.

In Vajrayana they talk about a very subtle mind. This subtle mind has always existed and will after nirvana is acheived. Now as I said above, I know it changes. But, the overall cycle or continuum of it is eternal. Isnt this against Buddha's teachings?

Also if Buddha says that Samsara never had a beginning, how can it end. That which has no beginning cant end. So why is it that In Mahayana they talk about the extinguishing of Samsara?

 

[Satsangi]

Friend Zenzero,

Your post is interesting and in that case, there is a difference between rebirth as seen in Buddhism and in Sanatana Dharma because there are discrete ETERNAL souls in the Sanatana Dharma; although in the end these souls are consciousness. But, in the end, Sanatana Dharma and Buddhism agree that removal of the ignorance stops rebirths.

Regards,

 

[LuisDantas]

While your observation is literally correct, Satsangi, I am personally no longer certain that this difference is really there. Zenzero helped me on this matter a while ago, quite despite myself.

It may well be that Rebirth and ((at least one possible understanding of) the Sanatana Dharma's conception of) Reincarnation are indeed one and the same thing after all.

As for why and how can that be... there are those who believe that Buddha was an Avatar of Vishnu bent on teaching the Sanatana Dharma to Atheists such as me who (naturally enough) had no belief in an Eternal Soul. After all, one who has no belief in God could not reasonably believe in an Eternal Soul either.

And among those, there is no clear consensus on whether Vishnu's supposed Avatar Buddha was being sincere or was instead fooling or tricking we Atheists into accepting the Dharma.

Now, that is an interesting idea to consider. We have what is arguably a whole spectrum of teachings which many still insist to be nevertheless essentially one and the same. There is no consensus on whether God exists or not; there is also no consensus on whether there are souls or not; neither there is consensus on whether such souls, if existent, are eternal or not.

And yet, there are also those such as zenzero who don't see any meaningful divergences there.

I've come to conclude that the key word is meaningful. Much as the Dharma may be taught in a variety of ethnical languages without loosing its way, it may also be taught under a variety of personal understandings of what a God, a Soul, or a future life would be. Naturally enough, adjustments in language are needed for the meaning to be preserved without serious distortion.

This may be hard to understand - and in my personal case, it may even be hard to accept (I have a deep-seated, perhaps even instinctual, rejection of reincarnation) - but once we consider what we all know about life and death we will understand that when an Atheist says that there is no God and no Soul, he is not denying that there is Existence and there is Life and there is Beauty, and likewise that when a traditional Sanatana Dharmi says that there is God and there are Brahma-Seeds inside us all and there is Reincarnation, they are ultimately still both describing the same life and the same existence. It is their understanding and their conceptions and their projections that change between them, not the nature of life and existence itself.

Eventually, both beliefs may and must be adjusted and calibrated by the known, observable properties of life and existence as it actually is.

We Atheists do not believe in God or in Souls, but we know for a fact that love and purpose do exist. So we will, quite reasonably, not claim that they exist because of God and Soul.

Likewise, a believer in God and in Atman and in Reincarnation will not deny that there are differences among the generations, even if he literally believes that the Souls are unchanging and reincarnate unfailingly and constantly. So he will not claim that we are literally living ever-repeating, monotonous replays of ever-unchanging lives. He knows that the tales and historical recordings do not support such an assertion, even if he may well at the same time believe that successive generations are indeed the very same Souls reincarnated in different bodies. He will simply not claim that different incarnations must have the same name, same body, same language, memories, skills, personalities and beliefs.

Neither perspective is really wrong, although careless adoption and extrapolation of either may lead to incorrect understanding and even to insane and destructive undestanding of either perspective.

Ultimately, it is mainly a matter of compatibility among choice of language and personal inclination and predisposition of belief.

 

[Satsangi]

Hi LuisDantas,

I did agree in my post that although there is apparent difference in the views, it is like seeing one thing from two different angles- I agree with Zenzero that there is no "meaningful difference" at the end of the day. The end conclusion of Sanatana Dharma and Buddhism is the same- to stop rebirths/reincarnation (whatever one defines them), ignorance has to go.

Regards,

 

[zenzero]

Friend Luis Dantes,

- but once we consider what we all know about life and death we will understand that when an Atheist says that there is no God and no Soul, he is not denying that there is Existence and there is Life and there is Beauty, and likewise that when a traditional Sanatana Dharmi says that there is God and there are Brahma-Seeds inside us all and there is Reincarnation, they are ultimately still both describing the same life and the same existence. It is their understanding and their conceptions and their projections that change between them, not the nature of life and existence itself.

Gautama though never spoke of any God as he never wanted another label except consciousness neither did he say there is no god because all those who speaks about God is the same *consciousness* besides his main intention was to get everyone to experience it.
Everything i.e. existence, life, energy, consciousness except the understanding of IT as they are all one and the same except the forms and forms of understanding are all different.

Love & rgds