A Fundamental Buddhist Concept

[rex]

... reincarnation is a hindu concept, if you mean rebirth (totally diffferent) then this is also fundamental in dhamma teachings.

Thanks for highlighting the crucial distinction. I must admit to using the terms interchangeably though this small piece on the differences fits well into this thread: Reicarnation vs. Rebirth

[forestofsouls]

There are three marks of existence and four dharma seals. There are four noble truths and the eightfold path. Not one of these deals with rebirth. I think theoretical arguments about rebirth detract from what Buddhism is all about.

[thelerner]

There are three marks of existence and four dharma seals. There are four noble truths and the eightfold path. Not one of these deals with rebirth. I think theoretical arguments about rebirth detract from what Buddhism is all about.

 

I think that is what the author of Gods Drink Whiskey was getting at. His knowledge of Buddhism is pretty profound, he's been teaching advanced studies of it around the world, not just the U.S. but in Buddhists countries to graduate students.

 

What I like about him is he doesn't say Buddha says.. He puts in where, which sutra Buddha says it. More importantly he's traveled enough and been immersed enough to recognize that in his words, 'There is no Buddhism, there is Buddhisms.

 

I don't think thats neccessarily clear to a sedentary practitioner. Its easy to cling to your local version, but if you travel and have an open mind, read and study you see more. His writings read like a spiritual adventure but his scholarship is clear. He comfortable with drug dealers and holy men, a rare combination.

 

When he says Buddhism would be better off without Karma and rebirth on its main plate, he knows its radical. He compares it to asserting Christianity would be better if Christ was not considered divine. Toss out heaven and the afterlife too. The teachings, the heart of the teachings have to be taught and understood without divinity. They have to stand on there own, here and now. No theological back up. Do they make sense and can you Socratically back them up without pulling out a holy book.

 

The beauty of Buddhism is mostly you can. He has nothing but scorn for self help crap and new age, but his love of Buddhism is clear. His argument isn't even neccessarily right, he knows that. But, it provides a door way to deeper understanding.

 

Like robbing Christ of his divinity, taking rebirth and karma out of Buddhism creates an opportunity to deepen understanding; if you have the intellectual flexibility. Travel widens it, dogmatism closes it.

 

I don't think K shows it by immediately jumping on the concept as cheap self help jargon, instead its a rationalist strain that has always had its place in Buddhism and stands as a defense against the 'folk magic' side that would deify the Buddha and corrupt his teachings. That is the real enemy that Buddhism is facing.

 

I don't have the book with me. Wish I did so I could quote out of it more intelligently then I write since I'm no Buddhist.

 

Michael

[forestofsouls]

"In buddhadharma, there is only one taste, the taste of liberation. That is the one dharma. Buddhism, on the other hand, is a manifestation of causes and conditions according to the changing environment that the buddhadharma encounters and the disposition of its practitioners. According to varying conditions and changing times, there arises what is known as Buddhism." -- Master Sheng Yen

 

I think we often confuse the two.

[.k.]

There are three marks of existence and four dharma seals. There are four noble truths and the eightfold path. Not one of these deals with rebirth. I think theoretical arguments about rebirth detract from what Buddhism is all about.

 

 

what is Buddhism about then? if not the ending of birth.

 

.k.

[adam mizner]

co-dependent arrising my friend.

 

he who sees it see the dhamma

 

metta

adam

 

There are three marks of existence and four dharma seals. There are four noble truths and the eightfold path. Not one of these deals with rebirth. I think theoretical arguments about rebirth detract from what Buddhism is all about.

[rex]

There are four noble truths and the eightfold path. Not one of these deals with rebirth.

The Twelve Links of Dependent Origination does and this was/is taught along with the Noble Eightfold Path.

 

Is there any particular school of Buddhism that doesn't accept rebirth as a central tenant?

Edited February 7, 2009 by rex

[forestofsouls]

"Bhikkus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering."

 

MN 22

 

 

what is Buddhism about then? if not the ending of birth.

 

.k.

[adam mizner]

yes, and the cause of suffering is birth

 

metta

adam

 

"Bhikkus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering."

 

MN 22

[Lightbringer]

The cause of suffering is the ego. Birth does not create the ego. The teachings of others, misinterpretations of events by the child and ignorance cause the creation of an ego as a defense mechanism for those enslaved by fear. If the world lacked people who propagated fear (creating more fear through their own fear-based actions), then children could live and resolve karma happily without ego resistance.

[forestofsouls]

[adam mizner]

[Lightbringer]

Egos aren't the cause of much besides confusion. Egos are no more the cause of birth than they are the cause of the seasons. Birth is the necessary way which spiritual beings manifest into the material world. Egos are simply karma. If you have no karma, birth will bring no more of it than you already had because it is not a particular thing to be quantified but an attitude. Karma is not the cause and effect of natural laws but our reaction to them. When these reactions are based on fear, they find a home in our subconscious. As a group label for all these unconscious reactions, we simply use Ego.

[林愛偉]

Egos aren't the cause of much besides confusion. Egos are no more the cause of birth than they are the cause of the seasons. Birth is the necessary way which spiritual beings manifest into the material world. Egos are simply karma. If you have no karma, birth will bring no more of it than you already had because it is not a particular thing to be quantified but an attitude. Karma is not the cause and effect of natural laws but our reaction to them. When these reactions are based on fear, they find a home in our subconscious. As a group label for all these unconscious reactions, we simply use Ego.

 

 

 

 

There are four views that leave one on the cycle of Birth and Death, thus aiding in creating karma.

They are,

 

1). View of Self

2). View of Personality

3). View of Others

4). View of Lifespan.

 

 

This is within the Daimond Sutra, stating any views such as these, (basically any remnants of these views within the mind) one cannot end the cycle of Birth and Death.

 

Peace,

Lin

Edited February 10, 2009 by 林愛偉

[adam mizner]

yes

these four views are all aspects of self which some choose to call the ego.

Lin i must agree

 

metta

adam

There are four views that leave one on the cycle of Birth and Death, thus aiding in creating karma.

They are,

 

1). View of Self

2). View of Personality

3). View of Others

4). View of Lifespan.

This is within the Daimond Sutra, stating any views such as these, (basically any remnants of these views within the mind) one cannot end the cycle of Birth and Death.

 

Peace,

Lin

[Bruce]

[Long Yun]

[林愛偉]

Well this makes sense to me, but I guess I'm still not totally getting it as well as I thought. For example, lets assume that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Buddha of Compassion. Using the flame metaphor (which I think was the most clarifying thing I've heard so far), he's not really the Buddha of Compassion in a different form. He is another flame that the Buddha of Compassion's flame touched (plus all the other Dalai Lama's in between). Right? So why give him any special recognition if he's not the same being as the Buddha of Compassion? I know I'm being very specific to Tibetan Buddhism when I use him as an example, but it's the best that I have. Thanks.

 

 

All Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are the same, its only the characteristics they utilize to manifest

to living beings which are different. Living beings, though hold the Buddha Nature, are not realized Buddhas

until they are. The only difference between living beings and Buddhas is Karma.

 

Peace,

Lin

[Bruce]

Well this makes sense to me, but I guess I'm still not totally getting it as well as I thought. For example, lets assume that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Buddha of Compassion. Using the flame metaphor (which I think was the most clarifying thing I've heard so far), he's not really the Buddha of Compassion in a different form. He is another flame that the Buddha of Compassion's flame touched (plus all the other Dalai Lama's in between). Right? So why give him any special recognition if he's not the same being as the Buddha of Compassion? I know I'm being very specific to Tibetan Buddhism when I use him as an example, but it's the best that I have. Thanks.

Yep. That's always been a question for me. Like most, I started out with general Buddhism study, pretty much Theravadan literature and a bit of Zen. My study took me into Tibetan Buddhism eventually, and I actually ended up being ordained for awhile in the Nyingma tradition. Don't take that to mean that I know anything. I wasn't a very good monk, lol.

 

Anyway, that's where things started getting pretty confusing to me. Contradictory, actually. The Tibetans study the Abhidamma as well. For all intents and purposes, they teach the same principle of rebirth as the Theravadans - except, it seems to me, when it comes to tulkus (which the Dalai Llama essentially is). Then it gets political, just like any other religion, IMO, and that's where things start to fall apart, again just my opinion.

 

I decided to just go back to the source, or what most in Buddhism accept to be the source, for this sort of thing and that's the Abhidamma. Do I really believe this stuff? I don't know.

 

I quipped in my intro that I'm working on dropping labels because they always end up ruining my practice. For instance, do I adhere to the Zen "belief" or the Tibetan "beliefs", and if so which faction? Somehow my little brain wants to identify with something, and religion being what it is, I always seem to find a contradiction, or just some political BS that ruins if for me. So now I'm dropping it all. I'm not even calling myself Buddhist anymore. I just practice.

 

That's a bit more than you asked. Sorry.

 

Oh - the poster above me alludes to the answer the Tibetans would give. That is, the Dalai Llama being a realized being "chooses" to return. It's not a dependent origination, particularly. I think that's right, lol.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Bruce

[Lightbringer]

[Bruce]

It strikes me that the flame analogy still implies distinction. A self if you will. How much "selfness" is transferred by one flame to another may be modified relative to an all-out "I have this many past lives, this is what I did" view but the root problem, the notion of "me", is still conveyed.

 

Then it struck me that to say we do not have a self is to say that we do not possess individual karma. I have been thinking that karma defines the self and the release from karma reveals the true Self. if this is not the case and we are not little packets of karma jumping from body to body, perhaps it is a more general process. Perhaps we all simply manifest, return to the source, then bring the karma that we wish (the Self's karma, the karma we all share since we are the same at the High Self level) with us to resolve while in human bodies. This seems closer to the truth than the "self" mentality (although my brain is still dealing with the rearranging of concepts that this implies), and it's already providing me with a greater sense of humility but why then do we not ALL resolve karma together as a uniform group? Ultimately, we are all the same thing manifesting in different bodies, but why different karma? To have some people be cruel and others enlightened seems bizarre to me.

 

Feel free to chip in whatever. There's not a lot of coherency to my thoughts right now, so anything helps. Thanks

 

I don't have a lot of thought coherency now either. Gettin' kinda late over here in the UK. I probably didn't phrase the candle analogy well, and like most examples on this topic, it too can leave one scratching their head.

 

Technically, and in my tired state I shouldn't be trying to be technical, karma stands apart from the aggragates, but somewhat like our environment, upbringing, etc it "conditions" us into patterns of behaviour. The aggragates cease, but karma doesn't. Karma doesn't technically make the ego so it doesn't cease, and thus it migrates.

 

If you want to get really confusing, there are Zen masters who say that what is inherited is not only our previous karma, but also random karma from "out there somewhere". Now, I can't find reference to that anywhere else. Other Zen teachers deny the idea of rebirth altogether, or treat it in an agnostic way. It's just one of those things that there isn't any concrete evidence of that everyone can agree on. Personally, I've fallen into the agnostic category.

[xabir2005]

(oops so sorry! I didn't realise I double posted. Not used to this interface.)

Edited February 13, 2009 by xabir2005

[Unconditioned]

only someone that doesnt understand Dhamma at all would say such a thing.

Karma is fundamental in Dhamma practise. Everything is subject to cause and effect.

and reincarnation is a hindu concept, if you mean rebirth (totally diffferent) then this is also fundamental in dhamma teachings. So much so that the enrire goal of Buddhism is that deathless is the end of it (rebirth). Some people dumb down the Dhamma thinking that practsing ordinary mindfulness for ordinary happiness in ordinary life is the goal. Although you can probably sell this in a self help book, it is not what the Buddha taught.

 

.k.

 

What is the root of cause? What is Karma dependent on?

 

I tend to agree that some of these Buddhist concepts can do more harm than good especially when they're sensationalized in the West as people thinking that their sum of experiences will continue on. Sort of like the Christian idea of Heaven where a lot of Christians believe they will continue their lives in another realm and keep their memories.

 

I also detect a sense of being defensive, what's the harm in questioning beliefs? Didn't the Buddha teach to not accept but to find out for oneself? Please don't take these questions as attacks, they are just genuine questions.

 

Edit: Also, what happens when samskara is no more? Does Karma 'cease'? Is it 'burned' out?

Edited February 12, 2009 by Unconditioned

[xabir2005]

Edited February 13, 2009 by xabir2005

[Bruce]

While this is always an interesting discussion, often leading to a lot of arguing

one could take an alternate tact.

 

If you are Buddhist, live by the precepts as best you can and practice diligently. You've then done all you can do. The next life, if there is one, will take care of itself, whether you understand the minutia of detail or not.