Western vs Eastern Buddhism

[George-ananda]

*

Reincarnation/Samsara is part of the Four Noble Truths, while Dependent Arising more or less is the basis of Kamma.

@Lyndon thought you a western Buddhist. I'm not clear yet. What kind of reincarnation do you believe in?. Does it include a reincarnating individual soul? Or what?

I have found that many western Buddhists n RF define 're-birth' in such a way that it can still be compatible with materialism.

 

[DawudTalut]

....... Its not akin to Abrahamic faiths. The definitions are not the same.......

Peace be on you.....Though it is not direct answer to your main question but you might want to read Ahmadiyya position about Hazrat Buddha (on whom be peace):

"......A close examination of Buddha's biography reveals that in his lifestyle, he was not any different from other prophets of God, who appeared in different parts of the world. There is a universality about the character and style of prophets which can also be discerned in the life of Buddha..........We maintain that Buddhism was a Divinely revealed religion. We emphasize the fact that the founder of Buddhism was certainly not an atheist, but was a man commissioned by God Himself, to deliver His message in the style that all other messengers were raised..........."
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_2.html
Please read the whole, it is long.

 

[crossfire]

It's more mindset than where one lives. It's just we use places to "place mark" who we are talking about without generalizing. Here is some information about western and eastern world views (I actually don't like the terms)

This is a better way to describe the two worldviews: it: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/

Buddha's teachings don't neatly fit into either one of these dichotomies. Buddha speaks of guarding your own individual mind to avoid having your mind overcome by greed, hatred, or delusion via either a collectivist Mara or by clinging to these when they arise in your own mind. (If you do not have independent self-control, you are not worthy of taking up the saffron robe.) Buddha began his journey to his enlightenment by withdrawing from society, and rejected the collectivist hierarchial caste system of that society. Overcoming the conceit "I am," (which seems to be a major criteria for defining both individualism and collectivism) is one of the first things Buddha mentioned upon his enlightenment. Investigating and knowing for oneself and abandoning all self views are major criteria for reaching the point of "Stream Entrant" in Buddhism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Reincarnation and rebirth certainly isn't Buddhism.

It apparently is for a lot of people.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I have found that many western Buddhists n RF define 're-birth' in such a way that it can still be compatible with materialism.

Some western Buddhists talk about rebirth as a psychological "moment-to-moment" process. Others talk about it in a more traditional way, a literal cycle of rebirth.
I have a sense that the first group are more vocal on-line.

 

[Sees]

Peace be on you.....Though it is not direct answer to your main question but you might want to read Ahmadiyya position about Hazrat Buddha (on whom be peace):

"......A close examination of Buddha's biography reveals that in his lifestyle, he was not any different from other prophets of God, who appeared in different parts of the world. There is a universality about the character and style of prophets which can also be discerned in the life of Buddha..........We maintain that Buddhism was a Divinely revealed religion. We emphasize the fact that the founder of Buddhism was certainly not an atheist, but was a man commissioned by God Himself, to deliver His message in the style that all other messengers were raised..........."
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_2.html
Please read the whole, it is long.

Ahhhh...now paarsurrey's old thread about Buddha believing in The Creator God makes sense

That is a very, very difficult to argue position.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_2.html
Please read the whole, it is long.

An interesting perspective, though attempting to view Buddhism through a monotheistic lens is inevitably going to be problematic. On the other hand attempting to view it through a strictly materialist lens isn't straightforward either.

Probably it's best to acknowledge that Buddhism is diverse and pluralistic, and very difficult to pin down. Many schools, many different methods, many different assumptions. Perhaps this is an inherent feature of dharmic religions?

 

[ratikala]

namaste Carlita ji

It's more mindset than where one lives. It's just we use places to "place mark" who we are talking about without generalizing. Here is some information about western and eastern world views (I actually don't like the terms)

This is a better way to describe the two worldviews: it: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/

I must agree the terminology sounds a bit awkward but it is coming from an American perspective as the discussion centers very much upon the American dilema over how the american should or should not veiw individuality , and individual responcibility ?

I read a little from the site , but to me it's slant is some what defined by the first lines on the about us page , ...

''The Objective Standard (TOS) is the preeminent source for commentary from an Objectivist perspective (Objectivism being Ayn Rand’s philosophy of reason, egoism, and laissez-faire capitalism).''


under any Dharmic system this kind of philosopy/ argument is some what redundant as the idea of our duty to one another is much stronger therefore the sence of self although not denied is veiwed from a very different perspective .

the average Buddhist (well at least to my knowledge) sees this life as a momentary experience in the greater cycle of birth and death , ...and accepts that whilst in this body we will experience some sence of self and self interest and that this is only natural given our position , but that this is not our true or ultimate nature , our ultimate nature is a state of Buddhi , thus many say that we are ourselves Buddhas or that we posess Buddha nature , ...we do but it is not yet fully awakened , ....but taken from this perspective , and given that we all posess the same nature or the potential to be of the same Buddhi , the same inteligence or awareness , .... in the ultimate sence there is no individual , the idea of individual is a temporary illusuory blip , ....but saddly I dont think the average American would like to be told that they dont realy exist , well at least not in the way that they think that they do , ...after all they spent so long fighting for human rights and they are so proud of it that to tell them that this is all a big illusion is going to be some what disturbing ,

in short we have what could be called Materialists and Non Materialists , those that cling to material nature and those that see material nature as only an part of our spitual progression therefor cling to it less as they do not see it as absolute , ....

it dosent matter if a Buddhist says Rebirth or Reincarnation all that is important is that we question our tendancy to cling to our sence of self and the illusion of individual identity , and strive to accheive an enlightened state of being .

then with an enlightened veiw this argument of individuality as opposed to colectivism is totaly blown out of the water , ...Dharma is then understood to be Duty and we are able to function as one , .....

I could go on but I am running short of time , ....will return to this this evening , ....

 

[ratikala]

Ahhhh...now paarsurrey's old thread about Buddha believing in The Creator God makes sense

That is a very, very difficult to argue position.

diffucult to argue , yes , ....but very interesting to discuss amongst those who are interested to look at it with an open mind

 

[Leftimies]

@Lyndon thought you a western Buddhist. I'm not clear yet. What kind of reincarnation do you believe in?. Does it include a reincarnating individual soul? Or what?

I have found that many western Buddhists n RF define 're-birth' in such a way that it can still be compatible with materialism.

I have not defined Reincarnation definitively yet, instead I like to make different theories based on the basic idea that something in the reality fluctuates through transformation and through arising and disintegration.

I do not flat out completely reject the idea of a reincarnating soul, based on the fact that I don't know for certain if its true or false, but I tend to dismiss it personally as I give greater emphasis to both Anattā / Not-Self and Suññatā / Emptiness. I do lean towards the position that reality is ultimately a product of cosmic creativity, which could very well be a sort of world-consciousness. So while my understanding of reincarnation is in turn informed by my understanding of Anattā and Suññatā, I do hold some views that go hand-in-hand with traditional Dharmic understanding.

There are three main 'theories' that I formulated and hold regarding the basic idea of transmigration of the reality-essence:

(1) The Physical Transmigration.
This is arguably the materialist understanding. Everything in the physical reality arises and disintegrates, rearranges and transforms and arises and disintegrates again. Different iterations of the same essence, repeating and transforming, ever since the world blew into existence. Thats one way to see Samsara, and I don't think its false just because it has a materialist viewpoint.

(2) The Idea-body Transmigration.
This is arguably the psychological understanding. Reincarnating could be seen as ideas and personality-fragments circulating throughout the social realm: the doctrines that we accept and allow to shape our worldviews, the ideas we learn and accept from others, the behaviors that we come to emulate, the compulsions that transmigrate as idea-behaviour patterns...they all are exchanged by people all the time. When we inherit somebody else's worldview, you could say that there is a 'little rebirth' right there - and in Buddha's words, the new iteration would be "not entirely different, but not entirely the same" as the original. And, often this idea-body transmigration is very clearly driven by desire, clinging and skillfulness, just as Buddha espoused.

(3) The Consciousness Transmigrating.
This is arguably the idealist understanding, and the one found in traditional schools of Buddhism and other Indian religions. That is that there is one whole cosmic consciousness / cosmic creativity that reincarnates throughout reality. The idea is fairly simple and accepted by myself. I don't attribute personality to this cosmic consciousness, though, as personality is something that arises in conjunction with bodily senses and experience. A cosmic consciousness would not have these.

However, I do think that all these three 'theories' can coexist and I personally hold them all as valid. If there is a cosmic consciousness / cosmic creativity, then everything, including the physical realm and the human ideas, are a by-product of it. Therefore, they are not three separate viewpoints as much as they are three aspects of one viewpoint. The Western Buddhists who like to focus on (1) or (2) instead of (3) just focus on a different aspect of the Buddhist reality. I tend to look at all three and hold all three as personal views of mine, mutually valid, but for Buddhist practice and pursuit of Nibbana I feel that (2) is the most crucial.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Peace be on you.....Though it is not direct answer to your main question but you might want to read Ahmadiyya position about Hazrat Buddha (on whom be peace):

"......A close examination of Buddha's biography reveals that in his lifestyle, he was not any different from other prophets of God, who appeared in different parts of the world. There is a universality about the character and style of prophets which can also be discerned in the life of Buddha..........We maintain that Buddhism was a Divinely revealed religion. We emphasize the fact that the founder of Buddhism was certainly not an atheist, but was a man commissioned by God Himself, to deliver His message in the style that all other messengers were raised..........."
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_2.html
Please read the whole, it is long.

I will have to read it later on. My relation to that statement is that the Buddha (from a buddhist point of view rather than abrahamic) did not believe in one God of Abraham. Rather, the gods/desses were just like everyons else with the same capability to acheive Buddhahood (just like Abrhama, Moses , to you and to me)

From Lotus Sutra point of view, Buddha nature is not similar to the Holy Spirit nor God of Abraham. Rather, it is another word for Who we truely are. The Buddha taught to acheive this, one must practice the Dharma rather than the Quran, Bible, and Torah. If he was alive and read all three, with humility and compassion (as with all other prophets share in "personality") and may say "Yes. Jesus had love. Moses had faith. Muhammad had obedience." He wouldnt turn them down that they "have not yet" achieve buddhahood.

The sutra says we, because we all have a Buddha nature, can acheive Buddhahood; it is the following of the Lotus Sutra that does not have a central God is by which we acheive this.

The Buddha and prophets have the same goal, the same personalities, the same wisdom (though they vary interpretation)

And.

Just like the Quran is different in their view of Jesus (being God) so doez the Buddha differ because his source of wisdom etc does not come from God as the prophets but from his true self. His nature.

That is why Abrahamic interpretation differs from Buddhist interpretation (going by the Lotus Sutra), it is not the people All of them are human. It is the source for which they have the compassion..etc Their source makes them Who they are.

From a Islamic perspective, he is a prophet from God (going by what you said)

From a christian (Jesus is God views), he is a person who has a sinful nature (which makes the Dharma different in their view)

In Judiaism, I cant say. The close I can think of is he is Gods creation.

My point: From a Buddhist (mayahana) perspective, everyone has a true nature. Whats more, the Buddha focused on the Mind as the source of enlightenment not God.

I cant speak for how others see him. I just understand how I see him as a follower of the Lotus Sutra. It is like asking a Christian Who the Buddha is. I would ask a practitioner.

-

I need to do some things. I just want to give you the context behind that statement. Its not that he is not a prophet. I just dont see him as a prophet "from a Buddhist point of view" because I dont see him (and he never says) he comes from God. I see him as everyone the same. From prophet to Joe Smoe. There is no difference between you and Moses. Other Abrahamics would disagree.

That is why the interpretations are different. That is not bad. It is different.

I will read the link soon.

Nam.

 

[Lyndon]

@Lyndon thought you a western Buddhist. I'm not clear yet. What kind of reincarnation do you believe in?. Does it include a reincarnating individual soul? Or what?

I have found that many western Buddhists n RF define 're-birth' in such a way that it can still be compatible with materialism.

My studies and very brief time as a monk were with Eastern Buddhists from SE Asian refugee communities, personally I believe in reincarnation and some kind of soul, which is not Therevada Buddhist, maybe more Hindu in concept. And I'm very anti materialistic.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Buddha's teachings don't neatly fit into either one of these dichotomies. Buddha speaks of guarding your own individual mind to avoid having your mind overcome by greed, hatred, or delusion via either a collectivist Mara or by clinging to these when they arise in your own mind. (If you do not have independent self-control, you are not worthy of taking up the saffron robe.) Buddha began his journey to his enlightenment by withdrawing from society, and rejected the collectivist hierarchial caste system of that society. Overcoming the conceit "I am," (which seems to be a major criteria for defining both individualism and collectivism) is one of the first things Buddha mentioned upon his enlightenment. Investigating and knowing for oneself and abandoning all self views are major criteria for reaching the point of "Stream Entrant" in Buddhism.

(Edit. Wrong thread)

I didnt mention Buddha in this, though. If I chose which the Buddha is part of, Id say he is a colletivist. He helped others. He taught the Bodhisattvas that they are to help other from suffering before themselves. Thats the goal. Others. Indian culture is like that. Its "Eastern". Has nothing to do with Buddhism in my post.

For Buddhists, it depends on the person not the faith. Without people, there is no Buddha.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

(3) The Consciousness Transmigrating.
That is that there is one whole cosmic consciousness / cosmic creativity that reincarnates throughout reality.

I don't think that's a Buddhist teaching, it sounds more like Advaita.

In the suttas of the Pali Canon beings are described as re-appearing in different realms according to their actions, which is basically kamma. It's analogous to waking up in the morning. We're not the same person as we were yesterday, but we have to live with the consequences of how we acted the previous day. If we drank too much the previous evening we'll wake up with a hangover.
As the suttas put it, we are heirs to our kamma.

 

[Lyndon]

There is much more scriptural basis for lifetime to lifetime rebirth, than this day to day, moment to moment rebirth stuff, which again is a secular Buddhist concept, largely.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is much more scriptural basis for lifetime to lifetime rebirth, than this day to day, moment to moment rebirth stuff, which again is a secular Buddhist concept, largely.

That's certainly true for the Pali Canon. From personal experience the idea of day-to-day rebirth makes sense, but moment-to-moment rebirth still looks very tenuous.

I think the deeper question here is whether a belief in rebirth is necessary to practice Buddhism effectively, and I don't see that it is. Also bear in mind that the craving for future existence is an aspect of tanha in the Second Noble Truth, so clinging to a belief in rebirth is going to be counter-productive. And more generally attachment to views is a hindrance, so having a head full of beliefs and opinions is probably not very conducive to liberation.

 

[crossfire]

I have not defined Reincarnation definitively yet, instead I like to make different theories based on the basic idea that something in the reality fluctuates through transformation and through arising and disintegration.

I do not flat out completely reject the idea of a reincarnating soul, based on the fact that I don't know for certain if its true or false, but I tend to dismiss it personally as I give greater emphasis to both Anattā / Not-Self and Suññatā / Emptiness. I do lean towards the position that reality is ultimately a product of cosmic creativity, which could very well be a sort of world-consciousness. So while my understanding of reincarnation is in turn informed by my understanding of Anattā and Suññatā, I do hold some views that go hand-in-hand with traditional Dharmic understanding.

There are three main 'theories' that I formulated and hold regarding the basic idea of transmigration of the reality-essence:

(1) The Physical Transmigration.
This is arguably the materialist understanding. Everything in the physical reality arises and disintegrates, rearranges and transforms and arises and disintegrates again. Different iterations of the same essence, repeating and transforming, ever since the world blew into existence. Thats one way to see Samsara, and I don't think its false just because it has a materialist viewpoint.

(2) The Idea-body Transmigration.
This is arguably the psychological understanding. Reincarnating could be seen as ideas and personality-fragments circulating throughout the social realm: the doctrines that we accept and allow to shape our worldviews, the ideas we learn and accept from others, the behaviors that we come to emulate, the compulsions that transmigrate as idea-behaviour patterns...they all are exchanged by people all the time. When we inherit somebody else's worldview, you could say that there is a 'little rebirth' right there - and in Buddha's words, the new iteration would be "not entirely different, but not entirely the same" as the original. And, often this idea-body transmigration is very clearly driven by desire, clinging and skillfulness, just as Buddha espoused.

(3) The Consciousness Transmigrating.
This is arguably the idealist understanding, and the one found in traditional schools of Buddhism and other Indian religions. That is that there is one whole cosmic consciousness / cosmic creativity that reincarnates throughout reality. The idea is fairly simple and accepted by myself. I don't attribute personality to this cosmic consciousness, though, as personality is something that arises in conjunction with bodily senses and experience. A cosmic consciousness would not have these.

However, I do think that all these three 'theories' can coexist and I personally hold them all as valid. If there is a cosmic consciousness / cosmic creativity, then everything, including the physical realm and the human ideas, are a by-product of it. Therefore, they are not three separate viewpoints as much as they are three aspects of one viewpoint. The Western Buddhists who like to focus on (1) or (2) instead of (3) just focus on a different aspect of the Buddhist reality. I tend to look at all three and hold all three as personal views of mine, mutually valid, but for Buddhist practice and pursuit of Nibbana I feel that (2) is the most crucial.

I would agree with you that number (2) on your list most closely resembles what Buddha taught.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html

 

[crossfire]

<...>
under any Dharmic system this kind of philosopy/ argument is some what redundant as the idea of our duty to one another is much stronger therefore the sence of self although not denied is veiwed from a very different perspective .
<...>

This was a good post, and I agree with most of it.
I will have to respectfully disagree on this one point from your post and follow the advise from the Dhammapada XII

165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another.

166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.​

 

[Leftimies]

I don't think that's a Buddhist teaching, it sounds more like Advaita.

In the suttas of the Pali Canon beings are described as re-appearing in different realms according to their actions, which is basically kamma. It's analogous to waking up in the morning. We're not the same person as we were yesterday, but we have to live with the consequences of how we acted the previous day. If we drank too much the previous evening we'll wake up with a hangover. As the suttas put it, we are heirs to our kamma.

Well it depends which tradition you ask. If you ask the Shingon and some Tendai Buddhists (particularly the Shingon Buddhists), there is more to be contemplated on the nature of Mahāvairocana Buddha and various concepts associated with it and its relation to Dharmakāya (Truth Body). For example, the Japanese monk Dohen of the Japanese Shingon tradition posited that Mahāvairocana is the Dharmakāya and the basis of all beings and phenomena. Its all very confusing, and there is definitely Hindu influences in the Vajrayāna school, part of which Shingon is. Quite many Shingon-based discourses have influenced my views as well, although I don't subscribe to their sutras.

The whole thing is very complex and requires further study to fully work out, but when you factor in the concept of the Buddha-mind, it seems that there are various schools of thought that hold the doctrine of "original, non-reincarnating, pure consciousness" that I tried to sketch in that 3rd section that you commented on. I am unsure, but it seems like the Yogācāra school also toys around with the idea of a primordial consciousness.

I agree with you that the whole belief in samsara and other things such as that are not necessary. Buddha told us to abandon opinions, first and foremost. But I am not afraid of holding opinions, as long as I am ready to reject my opinions without bias when shown to be unskillful.

 

[George-ananda]

Some western Buddhists talk about rebirth as a psychological "moment-to-moment" process. Others talk about it in a more traditional way, a literal cycle of rebirth.
I have a sense that the first group are more vocal on-line.

Spiny, are you in that first group?