Rebirth vs. Reincarnation

[work in progress]

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

Okay, but from the looks of it, it's going to take me awhile to get through!

Also, who told you that? Were they Hindu?

No, and I believe the original source was a book on comparative religion, so I didn't expect it to be a nuanced explanation, especially considering the problems with translation of these concepts into English.

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

Okay, but that would tell me what the self isn't, rather than what it is.

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.

Consciousness and memories =/= ātman.

Okay, but you're still going to lose me when you get to the part about transferring memories and self-conscious identity through reincarnation.

I haven't gotten around to it yet, but my first, unsophisticated objection I have to a concept like reincarnation is that we are no longer living on a world with a steady level of population. World population exceeded one billion for the first time a little over 150 years ago, and has been soaring upward ever since. So, where have the extra atman's come from?

 

[Vinayaka]

I personally believe that reincarnation isn't in the Vedas as its just a given, and it was then as it is now. (within SD) In an instructional manual about painting, is it really necessary to say, "But some paint." I don't suppose the Vedas ever mention that 'God exists' either. Like others here, I am very skeptical of any westerner's analysis. SD philosophy is quite unintellectual, and approaching it from the intellect is like using your ears to walk or your legs to hear. Doesn't work all that well.

 

[Nooj]

I haven't gotten around to it yet, but my first, unsophisticated objection I have to a concept like reincarnation is that we are no longer living on a world with a steady level of population. World population exceeded one billion for the first time a little over 150 years ago, and has been soaring upward ever since. So, where have the extra atman's come from?

You may be aware that in Buddhism and in Hinduism, this is not the only world or realm. There are many, many worlds inhabited by many, many beings beyond the earthly realm.
And that not only human beings reincarnate, but all sorts of animals and insects.

 

[work in progress]

You may be aware that in Buddhism and in Hinduism, this is not the only world or realm. There are many, many worlds inhabited by many, many beings beyond the earthly realm.
And that not only human beings reincarnate, but all sorts of animals and insects.

Do these other beings in other realms have any evidence for their existence? Lord of the Rings had lots of other non-human creatures, but I don't believe they actually existed outside of the mind of the author.

 

[Breathe]

No, and I believe the original source was a book on comparative religion, so I didn't expect it to be a nuanced explanation, especially considering the problems with translation of these concepts into English.

Try to get literature from a Hindu on Hinduism. There are a lot of people who are ignorant of Hindu teachings. For some reason, a lot of Western Buddhists are rife with misunderstandings of Hindu philosophy.

Okay, but that would tell me what the self isn't, rather than what it is.

Which is a better explanation, the same as Brahman.

Okay, but you're still going to lose me when you get to the part about transferring memories and self-conscious identity through reincarnation.

Only enlightened beings can remember previous lives. Same as how Buddha became enlightened and remembered his past lives.

I haven't gotten around to it yet, but my first, unsophisticated objection I have to a concept like reincarnation is that we are no longer living on a world with a steady level of population. World population exceeded one billion for the first time a little over 150 years ago, and has been soaring upward ever since. So, where have the extra atman's come from?

There's billions upon billions of other beings who have existed in the past.

Your first mistake, though is thinking they have just "come from".

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from childhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change. - Bhagavad Gītā 2:12-13

 

[Nooj]

Do these other beings in other realms have any evidence for their existence? Lord of the Rings had lots of other non-human creatures, but I don't believe they actually existed outside of the mind of the author.

Evidence? Well, there's plenty of that. Whether they'll convince you is another question. You can look at the Buddhist scriptures. The Buddha describes the Buddhist cosmology there. Buddhists take it on faith that he knew what he was talking about.

 

[Vinayaka]

I haven't gotten around to it yet, but my first, unsophisticated objection I have to a concept like reincarnation is that we are no longer living on a world with a steady level of population. World population exceeded one billion for the first time a little over 150 years ago, and has been soaring upward ever since. So, where have the extra atman's come from?

This can be explained at least partially, by the idea that you are only counting embodied jivas. What about disembodied jivas waiting between births? Of course Lord Siva (or whichever name you prefer) is creating new souls all the time as well. There are also different varieties of souls, some more suited to inhabit groups of bodies, like schools of fish. So when we injure a finger, that's like a school of fish losing one fish. The whole thing is far more complicated than our very limited understanding.

 

[ratikala]

dear prahus,

we started off with the question "rebirth vs reincarnation"

it seems that the question has turned to what it is that is re born and wether or not it is perminent ? , and wether it is called jiva , atma , param atma .........or.. what ?
does it realy matter what words we choose to describe something , what is important is the understanding that we gain .

bhagavad gita ch 13 ..v 28 ....."one who sees the supersoul accompanying the individual soul in all living entitys , and who understands that neither the soul or the supersoul within the destructable body is ever destroyed , he actualy sees"

and that one who realises this and recognises the supreme (by which ever name we know him) , will be freed from the cycle of birth and death never to return again , this does not mean extintion of the soul but only of the body . now krsna allso clearly states that those who recognise him acheive his eternal abode , but those who worship the demi gods acheive their temporary abodes .....thus must eventualy return again as embodied souls ,......here I hope you will see part of the explanation as to why the human population is expanding !
another posibility to concider is that in this godless age (kali yuga) fewer beings atain enlightenment , desire is greater , and sence of self stronger , therefore we are bound to the cycle of birth and death with less probability of release !....which equals more living entitys !!!!

I agree whole heartedly and quote chinus reply , what is the difference between re birth and reincarnation ? "LANGUAGE" :bow:

and the fact that we are bound by concepts constructed by our own imperfect minds.

 

[work in progress]

Try to get literature from a Hindu on Hinduism. There are a lot of people who are ignorant of Hindu teachings. For some reason, a lot of Western Buddhists are rife with misunderstandings of Hindu philosophy.

It could be that Hindu philosophy changed since the time that Buddhism branched off and became a separate religion. From what I've gathered regarding the rift, the Hindu Caste system was a major stumbling block, rejected by Buddhism, and still a thorn in the side of Hindu philosophy and Hindu communities today.

Only enlightened beings can remember previous lives. Same as how Buddha became enlightened and remembered his past lives.

I'm still stuck on this aspect of "remembering" a past life. Our memories are the product of a very physical system - a complex brain that has several regions that save the information as context-dependent memories. Because the system of memory requires context and is updated with new information, our memories are anything but an accurate recording of past events. Someone who has grown up in a Buddhist or Hindu culture, where reincarnation is a prevailing belief, is very likely to "remember" past lives, but few if any people growing up in the West - where afterlife is physical resurrection or a trip to heaven, talk about remembering past lives.

Regardless, once the brain dies, along with the body, there is nothing left of that personal identity to be carried forward and dropped into a new body.

There's billions upon billions of other beings who have existed in the past.

Where? Is there any proof of their existence? It's something that can just be made up from whole cloth.

Your first mistake, though is thinking they have just "come from".

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from childhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change. - Bhagavad Gītā 2:12-13

This passage is spoken by someone who has just taken the natural feeling most people have (who do not have a mental disorder) that we are separate from the bodies we inhabit, and have a consciousness that controls and directs the physical body. And in many, possibly most cultures, includes a belief that the mind can move on or migrate to another realm or another physical body. The results of modern research on the brain in the last 150 years, calls all beliefs of immaterial minds and free will into question.

The results of brain imaging studies performed on subjects as they perform mental tasks shows that the brain activity precedes conscious awareness of making a simple decision or performing a simple task. The implications are that our self perceptions are just as fallible as our perceptions of the external world. We think our "minds" control our bodies and cause them to act; when the real picture indicates the opposite is happening: first most of our decisions occur at a subconscious level away from our conscious awareness, but what we are consciously aware of is created by higher level brain activity. When a decision is arrived at, the brain creates the illusion of a self making a free will choice, and although the reasons why a brain creates a sense of self conscious mind acting with free will, there is a general agreement among neuroscientists and philosophers of mind that this sense of acting and directing the body provides a sense of ownership and concern for the body, and allows a complex physical system to maintain a sense of unity of purpose.

Without wading through a bunch of books on neuroscience and philosophy to pick up the general materialist view on mind and consciousness, I think the best online essay covering the essentials is this essay at Ebon Musings: A Ghost In The Machine

 

[Nooj]

Regardless, once the brain dies, along with the body, there is nothing left of that personal identity to be carried forward and dropped into a new body.

Here the Buddha would disagree. He followed the Middle Way, between annihilationism (the belief that the self ceases to exist after death) and eternalism (the belief that the self continues to exist after death).

There's a text that supposedly documents a famous debate between a Buddhist, Nagasena and a Greek king, Milinda (Menander). Maybe this will help understand the Buddhist mindset:

“What is it, Nàgasena, that is reborn?”
“Mind and matter.”
“Is it this very mind and matter that is reborn?”
“No, it is not, but by this mind and matter deeds are
done and because of those deeds another mind and matter
is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released
from the results of its previous deeds.”
“Give me an illustration.”
“It is like a fire that a man might kindle and, having
warmed himself, he might leave it burning and go away.
Then, if that fire were to set light to another man’s field and
the owner were to seize him and accuse him before the
king, and he were to say, ‘Your majesty, I did not set this
man’s field on fire. The fire that I left burning was different
to that which burnt his field. I am not guilty’. Would he
deserve punishment?”
“Indeed, yes, because whatever he might say the
latter fire resulted from the former one.”
“Just so, O king, by this mind and matter deeds are
done and because of those deeds another mind and matter
is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released
from the results of its previous deeds.”

 

[Breathe]

It could be that Hindu philosophy changed since the time that Buddhism branched off and became a separate religion. From what I've gathered regarding the rift, the Hindu Caste system was a major stumbling block, rejected by Buddhism, and still a thorn in the side of Hindu philosophy and Hindu communities today.

The Hindu caste system of Buddha's time--and of today--is not the true caste system.

I'm still stuck on this aspect of "remembering" a past life. Our memories are the product of a very physical system - a complex brain that has several regions that save the information as context-dependent memories. Because the system of memory requires context and is updated with new information, our memories are anything but an accurate recording of past events. Someone who has grown up in a Buddhist or Hindu culture, where reincarnation is a prevailing belief, is very likely to "remember" past lives, but few if any people growing up in the West - where afterlife is physical resurrection or a trip to heaven, talk about remembering past lives.

Actually, claims of reincarnation are spread out around the world, regardless of locality's and family's belief or disbelief in reincarnation. My wife's sister, raised in a Christian family, used to say she did things differently to her grandmother when she was a grandmother, and so on.

Where? Is there any proof of their existence? It's something that can just be made up from whole cloth.

This is a comparative religion thread. Not for debating. Either believe, or don't. It has no affect on myself, but adhere to the forum rules.

If you want a reason as to the billions of other beings have existed, it's quite simple, really. Bacteria, plants, bugs--all of these have ātman in Hindu thought.

 

[LuisDantas]

Here the Buddha would disagree. He followed the Middle Way, between annihilationism (the belief that the self ceases to exist after death) and eternalism (the belief that the self continues to exist after death).

There's a text that supposedly documents a famous debate between a Buddhist, Nagasena and a Greek king, Milinda (Menander). Maybe this will help understand the Buddhist mindset:

I would say that it does. But the Middle Way that Buddhism teaches is IMO far closer to what you call annihilationism than you seem to realize.

Self does not cease to exist because it is never quite real to begin with. It is an illusion, a functional illusion. Self is reborn, but it is also just one of many things reborn, and not a particularly noteworthy one.

 

[Ben Bet Beh]

...If you want a reason as to the billions of other beings have existed, it's quite simple, really. Bacteria, plants, bugs--all of these have ātman in Hindu thought.

This makes sense to me coming from a Christian background. In my own Christian background, everything has a soul whether it's a tree, a dog, or a human. The difference is that Christianity teaches that humans have an eternal soul whereas trees, dogs, etc. do not. When a dog dies, it becomes fertilizer for future plantlife. So you could say that the soul is re-born into another entity.

Therefore it appears that the key difference is that Buddhism teaches that all souls (for lack of a better term) are temporary and re-born into a different entity (non-eternal soul), whereras Hinduism teaches that all souls are eternal (which contrasts with the Christian concept of there being a difference between eternal souls (humans) and non-eternal souls).

 

[work in progress]

I would say that it does. But the Middle Way that Buddhism teaches is IMO far closer to what you call annihilationism than you seem to realize.

Self does not cease to exist because it is never quite real to begin with. It is an illusion, a functional illusion. Self is reborn, but it is also just one of many things reborn, and not a particularly noteworthy one.

I think the concept of no-self is so counter-intuitive to the way we think of our inner nature and other persons, that even those who believe it, find themselves using language and attitudes that we are permanent minds which exercise free will. This is what I've found confusing about some of the Buddhist writings I've come across over the years - they proclaim a doctrine of no-self, but act like there are individual permanent selves when addressing issues of ethics or personal conduct. And I've heard some sophisticated attempts to explain rebirth - particularly how someone could be born with the memories of a past life, but I still don't get how that could be possible.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the concept of no-self is so counter-intuitive to the way we think of our inner nature and other persons, that even those who believe it, find themselves using language and attitudes that we are permanent minds which exercise free will.

I don't have the foggiest idea of what free will would be, but otherwise I agree.

This is what I've found confusing about some of the Buddhist writings I've come across over the years - they proclaim a doctrine of no-self, but act like there are individual permanent selves when addressing issues of ethics or personal conduct.

That may well be a misunderstanding to some degree. The anatta doctrine does not deny that there is a self, only that it is anything but an ephemerous and fragile construct.

And I've heard some sophisticated attempts to explain rebirth - particularly how someone could be born with the memories of a past life, but I still don't get how that could be possible.

Personally I think those attempts miss the point. Past lifes were never meant to be taken so literally IMO.

 

[Nooj]

And I've heard some sophisticated attempts to explain rebirth - particularly how someone could be born with the memories of a past life, but I still don't get how that could be possible.

Do you have to understand it to accept it? I can't do maths to save my life. But I accept the findings of physicists without bothering to second guess their work, because I'm not qualified.

This is what I've found confusing about some of the Buddhist writings I've come across over the years - they proclaim a doctrine of no-self

I don't think Buddhism promotes a doctrine of no-self. I think it promotes one of not-self. This is not the self, that is not the self etc.

I particularly like this sutta:

"Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"
"It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole."
"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"

According to Buddhism, it is a rare (an extremely rare) opportunity to be reborn as a human. So work towards your salvation! Another sutta:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans."
"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

 

[Breathe]

I don't think Buddhism promotes a doctrine of no-self. I think it promotes one of not-self. This is not the self, that is not the self etc.

That is how I understand it, too.


Shame many of the saṃgha refuse to consider it to be anything other than something close to annihilationism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can you illustrate the difference?

 

[Nooj]

Two suttas:

Ananda Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya XLIV.10)

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

Anatta-lakkhana (Sutta Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59)

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

The Buddha said that what other people thought of as the self was not the self, but that's very different from saying that the self doesn't exist at all.

I see it as a contest between a positive belief, that there is a self, and a negative belief, that there is no self. The two are simply dogmatic opposites of each other, whereas I think the Buddha refused to play that game altogether.

 

[LuisDantas]

In all honesty, I fail to see the difference.