Rebirth vs. Reincarnation

[Ben Bet Beh]

My understanding is that Buddhists believe in rebirth while Hindus believe in reincarnation. What is the difference?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Rebirth isn't transmigration of a soul. It's just cause and effect. There is no soul in Buddhism that literally transfers to a new body at death.

 

[wmjbyatt]

It's mostly Gautama hijacking the contemporary Hindu lexicon (Buddha was a Hindu, kinda like how Jesus was a Jew, only more so) for the teaching of his own discovered Dharma.

 

[Engyo]

Reincarnation refers to an individual remaining a discrete, indentiiable individual while entering a new life. Someone may remember having lived a previous existence, but retaining their fundamental identity.

Rebirth is different, in that the individual does not cohere from one life to the next. 'I' am not reborn per se; there is a new individual, whose life has a karmic connection to mine. He or she is NOT me, as such, however.

The Five Aggregates helps give a very pared-down description of how this works.

 

[ratikala]

dear ben bet beh

first before I answer I will say that these are only words , I've heard buddhists and hindus use both terms , bear in mind that we are receiving translations fom the original tongue ,

quote ; BUDDHISTS BELEIVE IN RE BIRTH , WHILE HINDUS BELEIVE IN RE INCARNATION , WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE ?

you will also find slight differences of oppinion between different schools of hinduism and probably even larger differences of oppinion amongst buddhists .........

on the whole buddhists tend to think of mind , hindus of soul , both of which (if they do not break the cycle of birth and death , in the buddhist view or in the hindu view leave this bodily platform) (acheive nirvana , or return to ones god head) ....must return to take another form , to a buddhist the mind or mental continium will be re born again and again carrying with it imprints of previous thoughts and implications of previous actions untill the time that the mind becomes pure at which point it ceases to create the cause to take further births . a hindu thinks in terms of soul which is again re born in much the same way untill it has realised its constitutional position in relation to the lord , upon realizing this and ceasing to act for its own individual purpose , the hindu allso ceases to create the cause for continued re birth .

the difference lay not in the choice of words rebirth or reincarnation but in mind or soul , it is a complex subject which will I am sure bring about all kinds of oppinions from both sides , but it is interesting to note that when a hindu refers to soul he sees the paramatma residing in the heart , and when a buddhist thinks of mind he thinks of the heart reigon , as he is thinking of the subtle mind not the gross mind .

beyond the terminology there is much less of a dividing line between hindu and buddhist thought , infact no more or no less than between different schools of hinduism

 

[chinu]

My understanding is that Buddhists believe in rebirth while Hindus believe in reincarnation. What is the difference?

Language

_/\_
Chinu

 

[Otherright]

Reincarnation refers to an individual remaining a discrete, indentiiable individual while entering a new life. Someone may remember having lived a previous existence, but retaining their fundamental identity.

Rebirth is different, in that the individual does not cohere from one life to the next. 'I' am not reborn per se; there is a new individual, whose life has a karmic connection to mine. He or she is NOT me, as such, however.

The Five Aggregates helps give a very pared-down description of how this works.

:yes:

 

[religion99]

In Buddhism , Soul is transient. There is no permanent Soul. At every instance , the Soul in the Body is changing according to Buddhist Doctrine. At every instance , Soul is destroyed and leaves behind it's Memory Footprint and that's how we remember the past. The being which is representing you right now is different than the being when you were kid according to Buddhism. Taking birth in another body in such a system is translated as re-birth in English.

In Jainism , Soul is permanent, beginning-less and endless. The Being which is representing you now is the same as the Being which was representing you as a Kid or the one when you were in your Mom's tummy , or thousand years ago or trillion years ago or trillion years in future. The reason given for existence of permanent Soul in Jainism is special type of Knowledge called Recognition ( an awareness that something being observed is the same thing that has been observed before ). Taking birth in another body in such a system is translated as re-incarnation in English.

 

[Breathe]

The Five Aggregates helps give a very pared-down description of how this works.

Which, it is worth highlighting, that not many Hindus would consider any of those as the ātman either.

 

[religion99]

Quote from Jain Scripture about ātman ( referred to as Jiva in the quote)

"According to conventional viewpoint, that is called Jiva, which is possessed of four Pranas, viz., Indriya (the senses), Bal (force), Ayu (life) and Ana-prana (respiration) into the three periods of time (viz., the present, the past and the future)"

" and according to real viewpoint that which has consciousness is called Jiva."

 

[work in progress]

In Buddhism , Soul is transient. There is no permanent Soul. At every instance , the Soul in the Body is changing according to Buddhist Doctrine. At every instance , Soul is destroyed and leaves behind it's Memory Footprint and that's how we remember the past. The being which is representing you right now is different than the being when you were kid according to Buddhism. Taking birth in another body in such a system is translated as re-birth in English.

In Jainism , Soul is permanent, beginning-less and endless. The Being which is representing you now is the same as the Being which was representing you as a Kid or the one when you were in your Mom's tummy , or thousand years ago or trillion years ago or trillion years in future. The reason given for existence of permanent Soul in Jainism is special type of Knowledge called Recognition ( an awareness that something being observed is the same thing that has been observed before ). Taking birth in another body in such a system is translated as re-incarnation in English.

Sounds like you gave as good a definition of the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta as I am aware of! In modern theory of mind, the Buddhist would be considered to have a bundle theory of mind - that the mind's sense of permanence is an illusion - a collection of sensations connected together by short term memory. And the Jain or the Hindu would be the ego theorist - the mind creates a permanent self consciousness.

Unfortunately for the Jains and Hindus, most of the researchers in neuroscience and philosophy of mind are considering bundle theory as a better description of what's going on inside our heads.

Brain dysfunctions and abnormalities can destroy the sense of unity of mind that most of us think we have. Nor does the brain appear to have a central control center that would act as the ego or self. Instead, when subjects are wired up to brain imaging machines while they are performing complex tasks, patterns of activity occur throughout the cortex areas when asked to perform complex tasks.

The ego appears to be more of an illusion generated by the brain to provide us with a sense of separateness from the world around us, and concern for the wellbeing of our physical bodies.

I'm not sure how the Buddhists came up with a very counter-intuitive theory of the self; but according to modern science, it appears to be the only traditional religious understanding that fits with the growing body of scientific evidence.

 

[Breathe]

Unfortunately for the Jains and Hindus, most of the researchers in neuroscience and philosophy of mind are considering bundle theory as a better description of what's going on inside our heads.

Which is not where the Hindu ātman is considered to be.
Ātman =/= Ego.

 

[work in progress]

Which is not where the Hindu ātman is considered to be.
Ātman =/= Ego.

No, but from what I was told, atman is equivalent to the Western doctrine of soul, except that it is a portion of the universal soul instead of being a separate creation made by God. Is the atman considered to be the source of a person's mind or conscious self-awareness? The dualism of Christianity has a big problem trying to find something for the soul to be in charge of, as more and more mind properties are correlated with brain function. A similar quandary would face a doctrine of atman carrying the person's consciousnesses and memories from one incarnation to the next.

 

[religion99]

In Jain System , Atman is neither created by God nor is a portion of Universal Soul. It is uncreated,indestructible ever-changing independent Substance separate from Matter. According to Jainsm , Two Souls can never become one Soul and vice versa. Universal Soul (Brahman) doesn't exist according to Jainism.

 

[Breathe]

but from what I was told, atman is equivalent to the Western doctrine of soul, except that it is a portion of the universal soul

Depends. Not always.
Advaita Vedānta says that the ātman is Brahman in totality, not just a portion.

It may be worth looking at this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/111000-what-atman.html

Also, who told you that? Were they Hindu?

Is the atman considered to be the source of a person's mind or conscious self-awareness?

The Self is beyond identification with any phenomena. To equate it with thought, feeling, perception, consciousness, or the body are incorrect identifications.

I think it's fair to say that some interpret the ātman as being the ability that allows for sapience and consciousness in the first place - or that they are symptoms of the existence of the ātman in the first place.

A similar quandary would face a doctrine of atman carrying the person's consciousnesses and memories from one incarnation to the next.

Consciousness and memories =/= ātman.

 

[Nooj]

It's mostly Gautama hijacking the contemporary Hindu lexicon (Buddha was a Hindu, kinda like how Jesus was a Jew, only more so) for the teaching of his own discovered Dharma.

Hinduism didn't really exist at that point. He was in contact with Vedic religion though. Reincarnation as the later Hindus understood it didn't even exist as a concept then, it was introduced later.

 

[Madhuri]

Hinduism didn't really exist at that point. He was in contact with Vedic religion though. Reincarnation as the later Hindus understood it didn't even exist as a concept then, it was introduced later.

Do you have links to support this?
I am highly skeptical of western conclusions about Hinduism. They tend to be greatly diverse and speculative.

Also, to get technical, Hinduism doesn't exist today either. It's just an umbrella term for Vedic-derived religions.

 

[Breathe]

Do you have links to support this?
I am highly skeptical of western conclusions about Hinduism. They tend to be greatly diverse and speculative.

I've also heard from a couple of Hindus that although reincarnation is not specifically mentioned in the Vedas, it does include a passage or two that mentions dying again and again, which is a hint at reincarnation, showing such a view was there, or at least, beginning, early on into Hinduism's recorded history.

 

[Madhuri]

I've also heard from a couple of Hindus that although reincarnation is not specifically mentioned in the Vedas, it does include a passage or two that mentions dying again and again, which is a hint at reincarnation, showing such a view was there, or at least, beginning, early on into Hinduism's recorded history.

Yeh, we had a thread somewhere that quoted the passages.

 

[Nooj]

Do you have links to support this?
I am highly skeptical of western conclusions about Hinduism. They tend to be greatly diverse and speculative.

I remember reading from one of Johannes Bronkhorst's books, I think it was Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India, that it is only the later Upanishads that mention rebirth, and they are late texts in the Vedic tradition. And other places besides, but I can't tell you where I read those from.

But now you've pushed me to research my claims more closely, and I've found this interesting paper that argues for a few references to rebirth in the Rig Veda. It's by a Western scholar too. I don't know enough to say I know what they're doing though.