Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
there is no such thing as a self.
The difference between reincarnation and rebirth is a bit like this - holding up a mirror and asserting this is not a mirror it is a looking glass. They are fundamentally the same thing one is only using semantics.
What I mean is that, from a naturalistic perspective it is impossible to have a mind with complete libertarian free will to make decisions unconstrained by our neuro-chemistry and the effects of the environment upon us.I don't have the foggiest idea of what free will would be, but otherwise I agree.
I'm not surprised that there are problems translating meaning into different languages. Usually anatta is translated as "no self" in English.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.
The prevailing opinion from brain science appears to be moving strongly in favour of what's called "Bundle Theory of Mind." There is a minority who support some explanation of continuous ego - usually a product of a physical brain, and there is at least one philosopher of mind - Ken Ward, who gets alot of attention for being one of the few who is still a substance dualist - looking for a method of incorporating a non-physical mind with a very physical body. He believes in the existence of a soul, while explaining everything from brain research that seems to be moving in the opposite direction. So, in my estimation, he gets a little too much attention for being a scientist who is trying to support the understanding of mind that is compatible with religious orthodoxy.Personally I think those attempts miss the point. Past lifes were never meant to be taken so literally IMO.
The problem here is that the increased understanding of mind from brain research continually flies in the face of the traditional concept in the West of an incorporeal mind trapped inside a physical body.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.
That's good, because that's not how Buddhism thinks of the mind.The problem here is that the increased understanding of mind from brain research continually flies in the face of the traditional concept in the West of an incorporeal mind trapped inside a physical body.
Okay, but that's not very helpful! I just dropped in here to get a better description of what the differences are between the Buddhist and Hindu concepts of mind, and how they relate to the traditional Western dualism that most Christians believe in.That's good, because that's not how Buddhism thinks of the mind.
That's not quite correct. The answer is much more complex than that.hinduism is a polytheistic religion
An Indian Christian friend of mine (perhaps simplistically) explained that Christians believe that God was incarnated once in the person of Jesus Christ. Whereas Hindus believe God (Brahman) incarnated several times throughout the ages.That's not quite correct. The answer is much more complex than that.
Having said that, I am still wrestling with how Buddhists view reincarnation differently. There does seem to be an element of "spiritual atheism" when it comes to the Buddhist stance on being born again - not as yourself with there being no soul (if I understand correctly).
However, in Hinduism, there is a soul. Yet, I'm not sure how that all works.
I also am having a difficult time grasping how the Buddhist Dhali Lama plays into all of this. Is the current Dhali Lama the same as every other Dhali Lama's throughout the ages or not?
That is correct; but describing Hinduism as polytheism is similar to describing Christianity tritheism. Although it may appear that way, that is not how they consider themselves or what they believe.An Indian Christian friend of mine (perhaps simplistically) explained that Christians believe that God was incarnated once in the person of Jesus Christ. Whereas Hindus believe God (Brahman) incarnated several times throughout the ages.
It may be to your benefit to ask in the Buddhism DIR.Having said that, I am still wrestling with how Buddhists view reincarnation differently.
The Western conception of reincarnation is different to the conception of reincarnation in Dharmic thought - from what I gather, many Westerners believe that the personality is what reincarnates or something - am I right that this is common?Which would make such a concept far closer to the Buddhist concept of rebirth than to the western idea of reincarnation, in my opinion.