Questions about Buddhism

[vajradhara]

Namaste JGL,

thank you for the post.

though you have me on ignore, i am not ignoring you, so i will take a moment to comment on your post.

That is your personal take on this and I respectfully disagree. I view Vajradhara as a fundamentalist Buddhist.

yet, i am not a practiconer of the Fundamental Vehicle, i practice the Vajrayana which is decidedly different.

that being said, one must begin at the beginning and, given the derth of understanding of the Buddha Dharma, this is the where i start when i explain things to a non-Buddhist, like yourself.

The only use I see in eastern thought has been delineated by the western philosopher Alan Watts. Have I not make this clear by now?

how have you determined that Alan Watts was correct without researching what he was teaching for yourself? for some reason you've accepted Alans understanding as your own and are unwilling to even consider that you could be mistaken in your understanding of the Dharma. that does not strike me as a valid method to gain a proper cognition of the teachings.

I have read books by D.T. Suzuki and several biographical books on what Buddhism means to a variety of people, but I have no use for any “orthodox” beliefs involving boring references to venerated Buddhist scripture.

this displays a misunderstanding of the role of the Suttas in Buddhism. the Suttas/Sutras are not venerated, though some schools will tend to place a greater emphasis on one or more Suttas/Sutras which give rise to the multitude of different Paths that we find in the Buddha Dharma.

the Suttas/Sutras are spoken to a specific sort of being with a specific sort of understanding, thus, if you are not in the same situation as those beings, the teaching may or may not be applicable. this really cannot be overemphasized, in my opinion.

My conclusions of what Buddhism has to offer me are correct, strictly as they concern me.

yet, your conclusions are not your own, they are Alan Watts conclusions. thus far, it does not seem has if you have done the investigation of the teachings for yourself to determine if they are correct or not.

not to put too fine a point on it, however, Buddha Shakyamuni explained how we were to go about testing his teachings and i've been attempting to determine if you've engaged in that process to come to the conclusions that you have.

there is little chance that you will respond to this directly, as i'm on ignore now.

nevertheless, from what you've posted, it seems rather clear that the process of analysis and investigation has not been undergone, ipso facto, you have no basis upon which to determine which teachings are correct and which are not. more to the point, perhaps, is that you seem to be completely unaware of the Four Reliances and how those are used within the Buddha Dharma to evaluate the teachings.

of course, you're not a Buddhist, so there is no real reason that one would suspect that you'd have a proper cognition of the Dharma nor of the methods involved testing the teachings.

No, she thought she could get a hand up on me by playing word games because she thought I was unfamiliar with the difference in the reincarnation/rebirth ideas.

it is an interesting thing, your mind reading ability... perhaps you should hone this skill a bit more as this is not, at all, what my intentions were in posing my queries to you.

it seems as if you think that i am someone else and are reacting to that other being and reading all manner of things into my posts. they are plain and mean what they say, no hidden agenda or malice is there.

reincarnation and rebirth are, in fact, different. i would not have queried you about it if you hadn't used the term reincarnation when you meant rebirth. in any event, that is what prompted the question about it.

Turns out she was wrong, so we got a nice smiley from her as a reply. It all makes me wonder what other word games she is playing here.

my response was much more than a "smiley". if that is all that you saw in response, it could explain the communication issue that we seem to be having.

your responses to me have, from the outset, been aggressive, belittleing and downright unpleasant for no apparent reason.

I have put Vajradhara on my ignore list, so problem solved in any case.

hurray! as far as i know, this is the first being to place me on ignore

I am basically only interested in discussing eastern thought with those who have read Alan Watts and can understand and therefore discuss or critique his viewpoint.

this seems to be saying that we have to agree with Watts views for you to consider that we've read his works. i have several of his texts on Buddha Dharma and Tao and, for what they are, i enjoy his texts.

that i disagree with some of his conclusions should, in my view, not be a barrier to conversation and discussion. yet, that seems to be precisely the case here. strange, that.

It is a radically non-fundamentalist approach. That’s why it’s the only approach I find useful and thoroughly sensible.

and now we come to the crux of the issue, finally. whew! your interest is, it seems, only discussing Alan Watts and his understanding of the Buddha Dharma, not actually discussing the Buddha Dharma, itself.

the question remains, how have you determined that Alan Watts understanding and cognition are valid? especially since you have not engaged in this process yourself? this is precisely the sort of thing the Buddha Shakyamuni taught against in the Kalama Sutta.

metta,

~v

 

[JGL53]

Hello again.

Fair enough. I hope you'll excuse my ham-handed attempt at peacekeeping/clarification.

If you're interested in a less fundamentalist approach to Buddhism, you might find Stephen Batchelor's book "Buddhism Without Belief" interesting too.

I haven't read Alan Watts but I will have to check him out.

Metta,
ZW

Thanks for your kind words. I am on a PC in a mall right now so I can't check this, but I think the book I mentioned "Why Buddhism?" by Vicki Mackenzie has a chapter on Stephen Batchelor and his take on Buddhism. As I recall his was the viewpoint to which I most related.

As for Watts, if you live near a large public library you should be able to find one of his books. I know for a fact that Amazon.com is a source for many inexpensive paperback books by Watts.

Take care.

 

[Theowne]

No, she thought she could get a hand up on me by playing word games because she thought I was unfamiliar with the difference in the reincarnation/rebirth ideas.

As far as I have seen, vajradhara has never played "word games" or tried to get " the upper hand" on anything. Even when she was attacked maliciously by another poster she still responded politely.

I don't mean to sound like some kind of suck-up but from your posts you make it sound like she is some kind of evil, bitter poster and I find this very confusing.

 

[raffster]

As I previously said, like Alan Watts, I am a westernized or secular type of 'Zen Buddhist/Taoist', in which we do not view rebirth/kamma in any literal sense. You are a Tibetan Buddhist. Things could be worse. You could be a southern baptist christian and I could be a Shiite Muslim. Whatever.

Just so you know, JLG53, I am a practicing Zen Buddhist and I actually view rebirth and karma in a literal sense pretty much like Vaj does. Who is the "we" you are referring to here? I don't think all Zen Buddhist share your perspective.

If rebirth and karma cannot be perceived literally as any Buddhist should (regardless of tradition), the very essence of Buddhism will crumble. I believe that the core of Buddhist teaching is one's Awakening (in Zen it "begins" with Kensho or Satori and you probably already know that.) What is achieved when one Awakes -- isn't it the end of that cycle of rebirth and karma?

It is pretty much like saying that you're a Christian but do not believe in heaven. I remember when I was still a Christian I believed in the existence of Heaven quite literally. The main difference between faiths in consideration to the ongoing discussion is that "Awakening/Nirvana" can be "reached" while you're still alive while Heaven is a place you can go only when you die.

 

[JGL53]

... Just so you know, JLG53, I am a practicing Zen Buddhist and I actually view rebirth and karma in a literal sense pretty much like Vaj does....

Ok. What would that have to do with me? I fully accept the principle of freedom of belief (or freedom to choose one's own individual path, rather).

...Who is the "we" you are referring to here?...

I was referring to Alan Watts and myself - but there are many others also.

...I don't think all Zen Buddhist share your perspective....

I haven't taken a world-wide poll but I suspect the majority of Zen Buddhist "believe" in reincarnation and the "law" of kamma in a literal sense. I think they are wrong.

...If rebirth and karma cannot be perceived literally as any Buddhist should (regardless of tradition), the very essence of Buddhism will crumble....

These are two unsubstantiated assertions on your part. If you run them up a flag pole, guess what - I won't salute.

...I believe that the core of Buddhist teaching is one's Awakening (in Zen it "begins" with Kensho or Satori and you probably already know that.) What is achieved when one Awakes -- isn't it the end of that cycle of rebirth and karma?...

Not literally, in my view. It is in your view. Somebody’s view is incorrect here. I think it’s yours.

...It is pretty much like saying that you're a Christian but do not believe in heaven....

I've met christians who believe in reincarnation. Go figure, huh? But I view your analogy as way off. Instead I would say “It’s pretty much like saying that you’re a christian but do not believe in snake-handling.”

...I remember when I was still a Christian I believed in the existence of Heaven quite literally. The main difference between faiths in consideration to the ongoing discussion is that "Awakening/Nirvana" can be "reached" while you're still alive while Heaven is a place you can go only when you die. ...

In my view Enlightenment WILL be reached in this life, or it will never be reached, because the human perceived sense of "self” or feeling that we are a separate individual consciousness or separate spirit is Maya, an illusion. All is one. There are no separate "things", really. All is flux, flow, change and transient forms that do not so much come from Emptiness or go back in time into Emptiness, but ARE Emptiness - literally. (Hey, wow, I am a literalist after all).

Lookie here, raffster - I don't believe in a literal reincarnation - or rebirth as a synonym of reincarnation. Nor do I view kamma as something that is some absolute fact of reality analogous to negative and positive poles of a battery (one way a literalist tried to analogize it once to me) or some such. The word "rebirth" is only meaningful to me in the sense of "rebirth consciousness", wherein humans, like all, are in constant flux and change and are, in effect, “reborn” in each moment of time.

If you wish to appeal to some alleged teachings of The Buddha -Gautama Siddhartha - to settle our disagreement, then that isn’t happening either. I don't claim to be any kind of "orthodox" Buddhist, so I feel free to accept or reject any particular teaching of whatever philosophy. However I am confidant I am in full realization of the “essence” of eastern thought – so I call myself a (westernized secular) Buddhist/Taoist. It really doesn’t matter to me if someone else has some problem with this.

However, it is a fact that many Buddhists read Buddha as not teaching reincarnation or kamma literally. E.g., this is the viewpoint put forth in a book I’ve just purchased entitled "BUDDHISM IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK" by Steve Hagen. In chapter eight, entitled "Rebirth, Not Reincarnation" Hagen explains the meaning of "rebirth consciousness” and furthermore explains that the idea of reincarnation goes completely against one of the main realizations of the Buddha - that every concept and “thing” in consciousness, with no exceptions, is transient, impermanent, in time.

Hagen calls belief in reincarnation the “eternalistic view” - that some particular enduring self or soul survives the body and persists in some fashion. But he concludes "the awakened see directly that permanence is never found, so this "eternalistic" view does not hold.”

I am sure millions of Buddhists, including the present and 14th Dalai Lama, as well as the previous thirteen, all disagree/would have disagreed mightily. I think you are all wrong - and, if he were still alive, I think the Buddha would be owed an apology by all believers in reincarnation.

The first of the eightfold path is Right View. I think you should check your premises, raffster.

 

[raffster]

Ok. What would that have to do with me? I fully accept the principle of freedom of belief (or freedom to choose one's own individual path, rather).

I was simply stating my position, nothing more. Why are you being so defensive?

I haven't taken a world-wide poll but I suspect the majority of Zen Buddhist "believe" in reincarnation and the "law" of kamma in a literal sense. I think they are wrong.

I think you need to take a world-wide poll. In my Zen Buddhist organization I have not yet met anybody who believes in reincarnation. Perhaps I did not make time to explain what I meant by "literal sense" of the law of karma. What I mean is as simple as you reap what you sow. I apologize if I did not elaborate on that.

These are two unsubstantiated assertions on your part. If you run them up a flag pole, guess what - I won't salute.

That's fine. Perhaps it is a little difficult to see where exactly where both coming from so I feel that it may require a great deal of explaining exactly what I meant by what I said...I'll leave it as is, for now.

Not literally, in my view. It is in your view. Somebody’s view is incorrect here. I think it’s yours.

You seem quite fond of pointing out who's right or wrong ...

I've met christians who believe in reincarnation. Go figure, huh? But I view your analogy as way off. Instead I would say “It’s pretty much like saying that you’re a christian but do not believe in snake-handling.”

My analogy may seem way off to you but it makes sense to me. What does "snake-handling" have anything to do with the discussion?

In my view Enlightenment WILL be reached in this life, or it will never be reached, because the human perceived sense of "self” or feeling that we are a separate individual consciousness or separate spirit is Maya, an illusion. All is one. There are no separate "things", really. All is flux, flow, change and transient forms that do not so much come from Emptiness or go back in time into Emptiness, but ARE Emptiness - literally. (Hey, wow, I am a literalist after all).

Hmmm...interesting view. I agree with pretty much everything except the first statement of "enlightenment will be reached in this life" ... Can you please elaborate on this, are you saying that we are all assured of becoming enlightened in this life?

Lookie here, raffster - I don't believe in a literal reincarnation - or rebirth as a synonym of reincarnation. Nor do I view kamma as something that is some absolute fact of reality analogous to negative and positive poles of a battery (one way a literalist tried to analogize it once to me) or some such. The word "rebirth" is only meaningful to me in the sense of "rebirth consciousness", wherein humans, like all, are in constant flux and change and are, in effect, “reborn” in each moment of time.

I am totally with you on this except that how we define or understand things may be different. Perhaps you're understanding of what I define or deem as "literal" is different from yours. Maybe in the innermost depths of our understanding we share some common ground.

I never said I believed in reincarnation. I don't know where you got that from. I define and look at rebirth and reincarnation as two very different things. There is no self in Buddhism so what is there to reincarnate?

If you wish to appeal to some alleged teachings of The Buddha -Gautama Siddhartha - to settle our disagreement, then that isn’t happening either. I don't claim to be any kind of "orthodox" Buddhist, so I feel free to accept or reject any particular teaching of whatever philosophy. However I am confidant I am in full realization of the “essence” of eastern thought – so I call myself a (westernized secular) Buddhist/Taoist. It really doesn’t matter to me if someone else has some problem with this.

I don't think there's really anything to agree or disagree with. In the end we are all bound by a limited language -- a language that cannot express even something as simple as what the word "sweet" means, let alone "rebirth", "reincarnation", "karma" yada yada yada. I don't even know what "yada" means.

However, it is a fact that many Buddhists read Buddha as not teaching reincarnation or kamma literally. E.g., this is the viewpoint put forth in a book I’ve just purchased entitled "BUDDHISM IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK" by Steve Hagen. In chapter eight, entitled "Rebirth, Not Reincarnation" Hagen explains the meaning of "rebirth consciousness” and furthermore explains that the idea of reincarnation goes completely against one of the main realizations of the Buddha - that every concept and “thing” in consciousness, with no exceptions, is transient, impermanent, in time.

I'll go fetch that book this weekend. I live like 10 blocks away from Barnes and Noble -- isn't that sweet?

Hagen

calls belief in reincarnation the “eternalistic view” - that some particular enduring self or soul survives the body and persists in some fashion. But he concludes "the awakened see directly that permanence is never found, so this "eternalistic" view does not hold.”

I have long stopped believing in an eternal soul a long time ago.

I am sure millions of Buddhists, including the present and 14th Dalai Lama, as well as the previous thirteen, all disagree/would have disagreed mightily. I think you are all wrong - and, if he were still alive, I think the Buddha would be owed an apology by all believers in reincarnation.

Hmmm...I'll have to get back to you on this. I have to ask my Zen teachers if they know any Zen Buddhist in the group who believes in reincarnation.

The first of the eightfold path is Right View. I think you should check your premises, raffster.

Agree. But let me remind you that as Buddhists we must also be ministers of love, kindness and compassion.

 

[Aradia]

I haven't taken a world-wide poll but I suspect the majority of Zen Buddhist "believe" in reincarnation and the "law" of kamma in a literal sense. I think they are wrong.

Reincarnation is not the same thing as rebirth.

I've met christians who believe in reincarnation. Go figure, huh? But I view your analogy as way off. Instead I would say “It’s pretty much like saying that you’re a christian but do not believe in snake-handling.”

Reincarnation is not the same thing as rebirth.

Lookie here, raffster - I don't believe in a literal reincarnation - or rebirth as a synonym of reincarnation.

Reincarnation is not the same thing as rebirth.

However I am confidant I am in full realization of the “essence” of eastern thought – so I call myself a (westernized secular) Buddhist/Taoist.

Westerners have a tendency to believe that they know the "real" essence of buddhism, and that those who follow more traditional schools are wrong. Of course, those other schools have been contemplating, analysing, and discussing buddhist scripture for a heck of a lot longer than any western/secular buddhist. In short, westerners tend to be arrogant.

However, it is a fact that many Buddhists read Buddha as not teaching reincarnation or kamma literally.

And one more time, reincarnation is not the same thing as rebirth.

 

[Aradia]

i looked at them but i suppose i'm not seeing it. in my response post i was asking about kamma and by which process he had undertaken to determine the accuraccy of the teaching.

Don't worry about it. =)

have you heard of what Tibetans call Lam-Rim?

No, I can't say that I have... ??

 

[Nahienga]

Hmm... It's starting to become somewhat off-topic now, but carry on anyways. I won't interrupt. ^^,

 

[Aradia]

Hmm... It's starting to become somewhat off-topic now, but carry on anyways. I won't interrupt. ^^,

Heh. Very true. You've already received the best advice, on the first page: Check out www.buddhanet.net. Another good site, which is specifically about theravada (the school I follow), is www.accesstoinsight.org.

If you have a specific question you'd like to discuss, after you've done some reading at the above site(s), you might want to start a new thread so we can let this one die.

 

[Nahienga]

Heh. Very true. You've already received the best advice, on the first page: Check out www.buddhanet.net. Another good site, which is specifically about theravada (the school I follow), is www.accesstoinsight.org.

If you have a specific question you'd like to discuss, after you've done some reading at the above site(s), you might want to start a new thread so we can let this one die.

Thanks. =)

 

[NOSELF]

This is all very interesting.

 

[JGL53]

…I think you need to take a world-wide poll. In my Zen Buddhist organization I have not yet met anybody who believes in reincarnation. Perhaps I did not make time to explain what I meant by "literal sense" of the law of karma. What I mean is as simple as you reap what you sow. I apologize if I did not elaborate on that ...

Apparently we have been talking past each other here a good deal. I suppose we should have all agreed on definitions first. I have met Buddhists – and read several books now by Buddhists – who do indeed believe in reincarnation in the sense to which I’ve been referring - as far as I can tell (but they may be talking past me also). E.g., see the aforementioned "The Zen of Living and Dying" by Philip Kapleau and "Why Buddhism?" by Vicki Mackenzie. On karma, like you I believe one reaps what one sows, but some Buddhists seem to view the “law” of karma like it was a scientific or empirical law. Perhaps I just misunderstood.

…You seem quite fond of pointing out who's right or wrong ...

I used the word “think”, not “know”. This means I was expressing an opinion, not making a statement of supposed absolute and unquestioned truth. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But ultimately there is no right or wrong – there is only the Tao.

…My analogy may seem way off to you but it makes sense to me. What does "snake-handling" have anything to do with the discussion? ...

As in “reincarnation is to Buddhism as snake-handling is to Christianity.” – misunderstanding of what the philosophical viewpoint necessarily implies.

…Hmmm...interesting view. I agree with pretty much everything except the first statement of "enlightenment will be reached in this life" ... Can you please elaborate on this, are you saying that we are all assured of becoming enlightened in this life? ...

You completely misread me. I had thought it obvious that I was merely saying that IF a person WERE to become enlightened or awakened THEN it would have to happen in this lifetime BECAUSE reincarnation is apparently false – a superstition. Clear?

…I am totally with you on this except that how we define or understand things may be different. Perhaps you're understanding of what I define or deem as "literal" is different from yours. Maybe in the innermost depths of our understanding we share some common ground...

I’m beginning to think this is true. We may have no disagreement – IF we could ever get to the point where we could understand what the other was saying.

… I never said I believed in reincarnation. I don't know where you got that from. I define and look at rebirth and reincarnation as two very different things. There is no self in Buddhism so what is there to reincarnate? ...

Your last sentence here is a statement of my understanding. If that is your understanding we have no disagreement except for the trivial – word usage and such.

… I don't think there's really anything to agree or disagree with. In the end we are all bound by a limited language -- a language that cannot express even something as simple as what the word "sweet" means, let alone "rebirth", "reincarnation", "karma" yada yada yada. I don't even know what "yada" means...

True. The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao.

…I have long stopped believing in an eternal soul a long time ago...

Ditto.

…Agree. But let me remind you that as Buddhists we must also be ministers of love, kindness and compassion

From compassion all that is considered “good” , like love, flows forth. (I understand that evil must exist to define good, but I am speaking here of “good” as normally defined by the western mind.)

Nevertheless sometimes “tough love” is required. Those at the high end of the Bell Curve of “sensitivity” will upset themselves during this process, but true change does not come easily. I refer you to the lyrics of the song “Cruel to be Kind”.

Reincarnation is not the same thing as rebirth.

Reincarnation is not the same thing as rebirth.


Reincarnation is not the same thing as rebirth. …

I agree – rebirth as defined as “rebirth consciousness” – as I talked about in my previous post. But just so there will be not confusion, I’ll say it a fourth time: Reincarnation is not the same thing as rebirth.

…Westerners have a tendency to believe that they know the "real" essence of buddhism, and that those who follow more traditional schools are wrong. Of course, those other schools have been contemplating, analysing, and discussing buddhist scripture for a heck of a lot longer than any western/secular buddhist. In short, westerners tend to be arrogant…

Oh – well, I am sorry that you interpreted my expression of being “confident” as an expression of arrogance. For sure there are many westerners, christian and atheist and whatever, who have what you and I would agree are very wrong-headed views of Buddhism.

I am just confidant that, at this point, I have understood adequately what the “essence” is. I could be wrong. Why don’t you read the 24 books by Alan Watts that I have and then tell me, specifically, what he has missed or overlooked?

But, perhaps tomorrow or some other day in the future, I will have an insight and greatly expand my understanding of what the “essence” is. It could happen.

…And one more time, reincarnation is not the same thing as rebirth.…

Yep. It can’t be said often enough. I am SO much in agreement here I am literally giving my monitor a high five.

 

[Aradia]

I agree – rebirth as defined as “rebirth consciousness” – as I talked about in my previous post. But just so there will be not confusion, I’ll say it a fourth time: Reincarnation is not the same thing as rebirth.

Except that you continue to use the word "reincarnation". The Buddha never taught reincarnation. It's not a part of buddhism. Vajradhara never spoke of reincarnation as being a buddhist concept. For all your talk of "fundamentalist" buddhism, and how the scriptures have no inherent meaning for you, you've apparently missed the fact that the Buddha, and the scriptures, teach rebirth, not reincarnation. It's your continued usage of the word "reincarnation", and "rebirth" as a synonym, that seems to be at the root of the disagreements. Nothing more. The Buddha taught that there is no self, thus there is no self to be reincarnated. So in the future, when talking about buddhism, you should refer only to rebirth, and not reincarnation. Hopefully, then, these sorts of misunderstandings won't occur. =)

I am just confidant that, at this point, I have understood adequately what the “essence” is. I could be wrong. Why don’t you read the 24 books by Alan Watts that I have and then tell me, specifically, what he has missed or overlooked?

I long ago stopped reading "secular" works on buddhism. They have their place, but I prefer reading the tipitaka and coming to my own conclusions.

By the way, as a theravadin buddhist, I am much more of a "fundamentalist" than vajradhara or others here. And yet, we seem to agree on the concept of consciousness rebirth. Maybe you should reconsider your opinion of us "fundamentalists".

 

[JGL53]

Except that you continue to use the word "reincarnation". The Buddha never taught reincarnation. It's not a part of buddhism. Vajradhara never spoke of reincarnation as being a buddhist concept. For all your talk of "fundamentalist" buddhism, and how the scriptures have no inherent meaning for you, you've apparently missed the fact that the Buddha, and the scriptures, teach rebirth, not reincarnation. It's your continued usage of the word "reincarnation", and "rebirth" as a synonym, that seems to be at the root of the disagreements. Nothing more. The Buddha taught that there is no self, thus there is no self to be reincarnated. So in the future, when talking about buddhism, you should refer only to rebirth, and not reincarnation. Hopefully, then, these sorts of misunderstandings won't occur. =)...I long ago stopped reading "secular" works on buddhism. They have their place, but I prefer reading the tipitaka and coming to my own conclusions....By the way, as a theravadin buddhist, I am much more of a "fundamentalist" than vajradhara or others here. And yet, we seem to agree on the concept of consciousness rebirth. Maybe you should reconsider your opinion of us "fundamentalists"....

So you and I are in agreement. But just to clarify, there are Buddhists who believe in a type of "rebirth" that is synonymous with what you and I would define as "reincarnation". They accept the idea of “rebirth consciousness” but they mainly talk about coming back as another entity after their present body dies. They talk about remembering past lives.

You and I disagee with this view. Now, you may want to say such persons aren't really Buddhists - or that they may be but have gotten this part wrong. But please don't tell me they don't exist, and in large numbers, because they do. I have already indicated two books that contain the evidence that this is a fact - unless the authors of those books are writing fiction or lying.

 

[Aradia]

So you and I are in agreement. But just to clarify, there are Buddhists who believe in a type of "rebirth" that is synonymous with what you and I would define as "reincarnation". They accept the idea of “rebirth consciousness” but they mainly talk about coming back as another entity after their present body dies. They talk about remembering past lives.

I believe that your lack of diversity in reading material may be at the root of this misconception. Yes, the concept of remember past lives is a part of buddhist thought. However, it is inline with the concept of rebirth, not reincarnation. It is a type of "Direct Knowledge" which can be (but, if memory serves, need not be) attained. The Buddha described a number of types of Direct Knowledge that can be attained. The knowledge of past lives (or as vajradharma likes to term it, "past arisings", which is a better phrase in this regard) does not require any sort of "soul reincarnation".

However, I (as you probably are) am skeptical of anyone who claims to know their "past lives", whether they are buddhist or not. The mind is too easily fooled, and even brief research into hypnotic memory regression serves to demonstrate how easy it is to implant false memories, let alone false memories about past lives.

For what it's worth, the Buddha did not see his past lives until just prior to, or at the time of, his enlightenment (depending upon at which point in his meditation one believes that his enlightenment was actually attained), so it's unlikely that unenlightened buddhists can realistically claim to know their past lives.

 

[JGL53]

I believe that your lack of diversity in reading material may be at the root of this misconception. Yes, the concept of remember past lives is a part of buddhist thought. However, it is inline with the concept of rebirth, not reincarnation. It is a type of "Direct Knowledge" which can be (but, if memory serves, need not be) attained. The Buddha described a number of types of Direct Knowledge that can be attained. The knowledge of past lives (or as vajradharma likes to term it, "past arisings", which is a better phrase in this regard) does not require any sort of "soul reincarnation".

However, I (as you probably are) am skeptical of anyone who claims to know their "past lives", whether they are buddhist or not. The mind is too easily fooled, and even brief research into hypnotic memory regression serves to demonstrate how easy it is to implant false memories, let alone false memories about past lives.

For what it's worth, the Buddha did not see his past lives until just prior to, or at the time of, his enlightenment (depending upon at which point in his meditation one believes that his enlightenment was actually attained), so it's unlikely that unenlightened buddhists can realistically claim to know their past lives.

Whatever. After reading the above a flood of cliche quotes immediately came to my mind, e.g.:

A rose by an other name would smell as sweet. A pile of fresh horse manure by any other name would stink as bad.

Six of one and a half dozen of another.

He strains at a gnat, yet swallows a camel.

Q. If you call the tail on a horse a leg, then how many legs does the horse have?

A. Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

 

[Aradia]

Whatever. After reading the above a flood of cliche quotes immediately came to my mind, e.g.:

Which basically translates to, "Because I don't see a difference, there is no difference." Ok, suit yourself.

 

[vajradhara]

Don't worry about it. =)



No, I can't say that I have... ??

Namaste Aradia,

Thank you for the post.

Lam-rim is the Tibetan word for "Stages of the Path" and really means a non-sectarian (Rime) manner of presenting the Buddha Dharma from the ground up.

they take the view that, as a beginner, we know nothing regarding the Buddha Dharma with any accuracy, so we start from the start, so to speak. then the teachings move in a systematic method leading from the beginning of the path of practice to the end of the path of practice.

Tibetans, in general, have a very inquisitive nature and tend to find value in a step by step method of teaching. it has some appeal to my own nature as well.

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

By the way, as a theravadin buddhist, I am much more of a "fundamentalist" than vajradhara or others here. And yet, we seem to agree on the concept of consciousness rebirth. Maybe you should reconsider your opinion of us "fundamentalists".

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Aradia again.
​