Reincarnation

[triam]

Reincarnation : i accept Buddha/Nagarjuna's idea of reincarnation, where they argue that the spirit of someone's actions, the causality of one's actions and the emotions of a person get re-incarnated throughout time. The circular nature of history is proof of this IMO, where similar events keep playing themselves out as the causality of one's actions along with the spirit of it is embedded in the collective conciousness/social conciousness and keeps re-asserting itself. But reincarnation, as in the hindu thinking of one's imperishable soul being continuously re-born and re-incarnated? utterly and 100% prime quality boolsheet of circular reasoning and zero evidence whatsoever.

CC Can you explain what is buddhism's version of reincarnation and how it differs from hinduism with more examples etc, it will be helpful for me to understand

[CC1981]

Can you explain what is buddhism's version of reincarnation and how it differs from hinduism with more examples etc, it will be helpful for me to understand

It is a very convoluted and deep topic and i am by no means an expert in either religions. But i have read the theology and philosophy of both the religions(if you can really call Buddhism a religion) and my understanding is that the fundamental difference is on the concept of atman. In Hinduism, the concept of reincarnation is fairly simple and well known : all creatures have an atman/soul and it is imperishable. At the end of one's physical existence, the soul is 'reborn' into another physical body and it can be anything from a protoplasm to an Olympic athlete, depending on how good your karma was. And if your Karma was REALLY good, your soul escapes the cycle of rebirth and ascends to a higher reality, the reality of the Brahman. In Buddhism, there is no atman - ie, we do not have a 'soul' that is distinguishable from the physical body. Buddhism views us as composites and the 'sum of many parts' that make us concious and functional. In this aspect, Buddhism is far more in line with modern science, as it does not believe in the boolsheet (and as of now, completely unfounded) concept of a soul/atman. Since Buddhism rejects the concept of Atman, reincarnation in Buddhism is not a personal experience. Ie, the imperishable soul of a person is not reincarnated. Buddhism's fundamental concept of defining a person is not just based on his/her deeds but also by his/her thoughts. One of Sri Gautam's most famous quotes is ' with our minds we make the world'. Our thoughts determines our fundamental nature . For example, if you hang around here long enough, you will discover the fundamental nature to many posters. Aditi is fundamentally a sweet girl, who's fundamental nature is to enjoy life and get other people to enjoy life. Swetabh's fundamental nature is that of finding the empiric truth behind something through discourse. Bossbhai's fundamental nature is combative and obstinacy. The fundamental nature of a person can (obviously) be changed or change - but for most of us, it does not and through our lives, our fundamental nature only strengthens through time. It is THIS fundamental nature- that gets reincarnated. It is THIS fundamental nature that gets passed along in the society. For every one of us influences a certain number of people through our lifetime - for some its a few, for some its many. And our fundamental nature is the blueprint of our influence on others. This fundamental nature gets reincarnated time and time again, until such a fundamental nature is reached that gives one ultimate clarity to the question of existence : Nirvana. Since Nirvana cannot be taught by anyone and since there is no physical or material guide to Nirvana, this fundamental nature(nirvana) cannot be reincarnated .Buddha himself said that the final step of Nirvana comes from within- something nobody can teach, explain or quantify, as the final step in understanding is to transcend linguistic limitations in thought and grasp that which is inexpressible. If this is confusing you even further, then perhaps my (crude) example would make it slightly clear: Who am I ? I am what i think and what i do. What do i leave behind ? my thoughts and my actions. Say i give to charity, help the poor, run my own business and think that the world should be free of politics. The ones i influence or convince that this is the way to lead life - or the ones who by their attraction or admiration of me , take some of my lifestyle and my thoughts and make it theirs, then in essence, i am being re-incarnated. When someone is living life like Jesus and turning the other cheek, then its part of Jesus being reincarnated. When someone is admiring Nero and his throwing of prisoners to the lions for spectacle and doing it/wishing they were doing it to their enemies, then its Nero being reincarnated. This is the fundamental difference between reincarnation in Buddhism and Hinduism.

[triam]

Ok, makes a little more sense than before, and it looks like it means "the impact that you leave as your legacy", it is a good concept. LEt me do some reading on that. Hinduism's version of reincarnation I am very familiar with. And I believe I do know the fundamental nature of most posters here, being that I have been involved with this board for a long time.

[CC1981]

Cheers mate. I think you should do some further reading into Buddhism if you seek further clarification/info on this topic, but glad i made things (slightly) clearer for you.

[dial_100]

Very interesting. Anyways, I just hate to argue on religious discussions or anything for that matter. Just FYI, I came across this text. (A talk given at a high school in Los Angeles by Kusala Bhikshu) Sometimes a student will ask me how everything in this world got started... "If you don’t have God in Buddhism then who or what caused the universe?" When the Buddha was asked how the world started, he kept silent. In the religion of Buddhism we don’t have a first cause, instead we have a never ending circle of birth and death. In this world and in all worlds, there are many beginnings and ends. The model of life used in Buddhism has no starting place... It just keeps going and going. Now having said that... If you’re a Buddhist it’s OK to believe God was the first cause... It really doesn't go against the teachings of the Buddha, his focus was on suffering... It's also OK to believe science has the answer… Like the big bang theory, etc... Some Buddhist’s don’t even care how it all started, and that’s fine too. Knowing how the world started is not going to end your suffering, it’s just going to give you more stuff to think about. I hope you can see that God is not what Buddhism is about... Suffering is... And if you want to believe in God, as some Buddhists do, I suppose it's OK. But, Buddhist's don't believe God can end suffering. Only the teaching's of the Buddha can help us end suffering through wisdom and the activity of compassion. In his whole life and in all his teachings the Buddha never said anything about the One God of the desert. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: nirvana (Sanskrit: "Extinction") In Indian religious thought, the transcendent state of freedom achieved by the extinction of desire and of individual consciousness. Nirvana is the supreme goal of the disciplines of meditation, particularly in Buddhism. Release from desire (and consequent suffering) and the continuous round of rebirths constitutes enlightenment, or the experience of nirvana. Theravada Buddhism conceives of nirvana as tranquillity and peace; Mahayana Buddhism equates it with sunyata (emptiness), dharma-kaya (the essence of the Buddha), and dharma-datu (ultimate reality). May be I didn;t understand buddhism properly. But here is your quote. Buddha himself said that the final step of Nirvana comes from within- something nobody can teach, explain or quantify, as the final step in understanding is to transcend linguistic limitations in thought and grasp that which is inexpressible. Now I dont understand when you said, final Step of Nirvana comes from within. Now which part within you, you think, you should get that from? Are you refering to any Organ within you? If not what is the term Within for you? Because you claim Atma is not a separate from physical body. Okay leave this aside, Who needs nirvana? A body, your identity("fundamental nature" what you called above), or some part of your body or your thoughts?

[punjabi_khota]

I think it is pretty useless and lame to attempt to find proofs on which various faiths are based on. It does not matter which religion you belong to, if you have got half a brain, you can figure the real meaning and purpose of the stories in the various holy books.

[CC1981]

Now I dont understand when you said, final Step of Nirvana comes from within. Now which part within you, you think, you should get that from? Are you refering to any Organ within you? If not what is the term Within for you? Because you claim Atma is not a separate from physical body.

Your question is kinda surprising. From which part of the body ?!? Eh ? what exactly do you think Nirvana is ? some sort of physical or physiological mutation that makes you different from another human at cellular level ? No. Nirvana simply is the 'complete understanding' of the causality (karma) of this universe and ultimate understanding of our existential reality. As such, it is obviously your 'brain' that leads you to Nirvana much like it is your Brain that leads you to understand Newtonian Physics. The final step in Nirvana cannot be taught or communicated to another- it is similar to the phrase ' you can bring a horse to water but you cant make it drink it'. Only the individual itself can achieve Nirvana. This is because since Nirvana is complete understanding of our existential reality, such complete understanding cannot be adequately communicated through language, as language has limitations in itself too ( eg: I can say I love dosai and you can say you love biriyani- but we cannot really compare our likes- as in if i like dosai more than you like biriyani. For what we individually define as 'like' is different than one another). Therefore, the final step in NIrvana cannot be taught or guided to, but the path to it can be. The final step involves the individual taking their understanding of reality to such a level that they transcend language and communication verbally. This is why in Dharmic traditions, those who've achieved Nirvana are extremely rare.

[sandtest]

People hardly know anything worth to distinguish between Philosophical subtle naunces of "Dvaita" (Dualism), Advaitha (Non-Dualism) and it's several discourses and commentaries which further elaborates it down into Kevala Advaitha, Vishishta Avaitha and Dvaita-Advaitha. Some jingiostic readers and their interpretation of presence of Atman as SEPERATE entity in "Jiva" is what leads to many laymans to go ashtray and make lloony conlusion that Hinduims is all about re-incarnation of Atman in "different" bodies --- when in fact it is their ignorant acceptance of "Dvaita" as Hinduisms only tradition for their own convenience. Of course Dvaita is an influencial Vedantic school of thought in Hinduism, but important to notice is it is "Advaita" and Adi Shankaras flawless commentaries on Advaita i.e. Non-Dualism, which once defeated Budhisms at philosophical level in India. That doesnot mean dvaita is rejected in Hinduism. It is Dvaita that paved way for various "reactionary to Abrahamic invasion" type movements such as Bhakti Movement, Shri Ramanuja's Vaishnavite Movement, Kashmiri Shaivism, and Bengal'a great Sadhak's like Swami Ramkrishna Paramhansa's Shakta/Shakti school of thought, Point is Hinduism is NOT about one rigid CONCLUSIVE ideology or philosophy unlike Islamism, Christo-Judaic or even Budhism. Hinduism is FREE to evlove EXACTLY like Science as and when Human consciousness evolves, NOTHING is conclusive and nothing can be conclusive through Sensual experiences of human -- that's some of the few interpretations of great Rishis and Tapasvis of Vedic and Upanishdic era. Sanatan Dharma which once was STRICTLY Yagna/Fire sacrifice based Vedic dharma evolved herself into Dvaita, seeing God or Brahman as seperate entity, bringing Bhakti movement and worship of Supreme Conscious in various "Vigraha" or "Roopa" or "Idol" and it successfully protected herself from Christian-Islamic version of "Dualist" thought. Look back at Afghanistan and what happened to them, they were Budhists and unable to evolve themselves "temporarily" and thus perished. today we are seeing those same people whose ancestors once use to be Budhist monks are now Talibanies executing people for not-believing a "Seperate" entity called Allah. Point is Hinduism evolved to protect herself from various attacks/invasions, but it's core philosophy nevethless remains in deep ocean of INCONCLUSIVE EXPERIENCE of Advaita Vedanta. To understand more about Advaita, for a starter one has to understand the Concept of "Brahman" (The Supreme Consciousness) and it's indifference with Atman (The perceived consciousness). It's not an easy task to to explain the Sanskrit commentaries in English, for most loose the meaning in translation itself. Even the term "advaita" and the meaning it carries in Indic linguistic tradition is hardly experssed by it's English translation -- non-dualism. At the end for an ordinary Hindu it is Very simple.....all is that we percieve is "Maya" (sensual perception) Onlee, so why worry, have curry :D

[Guest dada_rocks]

People hardly know anything worth to distinguish between Philosophical subtle naunces of "Dvaita" (Dualism), Advaitha (Non-Dualism) and it's several discourses and commentaries which further elaborates it down into Kevala Advaitha, Vishishta Avaitha and Dvaita-Advaitha. Some jingiostic readers and their interpretation of presence of Atman as SEPERATE entity in "Jiva" is what leads to many laymans to go ashtray and make CC like loony conlusion that Hinduims is all about re-incarnation of Atman in "different" bodies --- when in fact it is their ignorant acceptance of "Dvaita" as Hinduisms only tradition for their own convenience. Of course Dvaita is an influencial Vedantic school of thought in Hinduism, but important to notice is it is "Advaita" and Adi Shankaras flawless commentaries on Advaita i.e. Non-Dualism, which once defeated Budhisms at philosophical level in India. That doesnot mean dvaita is rejected in Hinduism. It is Dvaita that paved way for various "reactionary to Abrahamic invasion" type movements such as Bhakti Movement, Shri Ramanuja's Vaishnavite Movement, Kashmiri Shaivism, and Bengal'a great Sadhak's like Swami Ramkrishna Paramhansa's Shakta/Shakti school of thought, Point is Hinduism is NOT about one rigid CONCLUSIVE ideology or philosophy unlike Islamism, Christo-Judaic or even Budhism. Hinduism is FREE to evlove EXACTLY like Science as and when Human consciousness evolves, NOTHING is conclusive and nothing can be conclusive through Sensual experiences of human -- that's some of the few interpretations of great Rishis and Tapasvis of Vedic and Upanishdic era. Sanatan Dharma which once was STRICTLY Yagna/Fire sacrifice based Vedic dharma evolved herself into Dvaita, seeing God or Brahman as seperate entity, bringing Bhakti movement and worship of Supreme Conscious in various "Vigraha" or "Roopa" or "Idol" and it successfully protected herself from Christian-Islamic version of "Dualist" thought. Look back at Afghanistan and what happened to them, they were Budhists and unable to evolve themselves "temporarily" and thus perished. today we are seeing those same people whose ancestors once use to be Budhist monks are now Talibanies executing people for not-believing a "Seperate" entity called Allah. Point is Hinduism evolved to protect herself from various attacks/invasions, but it's core philosophy nevethless remains in deep ocean of INCONCLUSIVE EXPERIENCE of Advaita Vedanta. To understand more about Advaita, for a starter one has to understand the Concept of "Brahman" (The Supreme Consciousness) and it's indifference with Atman (The perceived consciousness). It's not an easy task to to explain the Sanskrit commentaries in English, for most loose the meaning in translation itself. Even the term "advaita" and the meaning it carries in Indic linguistic tradition is hardly experssed by it's English translation -- non-dualism. At the end for an ordinary Hindu it is Very simple.....all is that we percieve is "Maya" (sensual perception) Onlee, so why worry, have curry :D

That was very succinct yet covered whole spectrum of vedant philopshy I sincerely think you should start giving lectures many will benefit......

[dial_100]

I think it is pretty useless and lame to attempt to find proofs on which various faiths are based on. It does not matter which religion you belong to, if you have got half a brain, you can figure the real meaning and purpose of the stories in the various holy books.

First of apology to CC. Well, I had read few things and it contradicted some what from what CC said so I was curious. Cheers.

[CC1981]

which once defeated Budhisms at philosophical level in India.

And you are getting this from where ? Nothing more than yet another piece of utter propaganda from a hinduvta. Buddhism is far more scientific than hinduism - one of the many things that proves it, is that unlike hinduism, buddhism doesnt believe in boolsheet like God or Brahman or atma - all assumptions with ZERO proofs. Buddhism has far less assumptions, far more logic and far less ambiguity in its midst than the hodge podge of hinduism. And that is the fundamental reason why Buddhism has become near-extinct in India : once our universities and higher centers of learning were destroyed by the huns and later the muslims, the populace found the boolsheet assumptions of hinduism (which are far more in line with other religions) easier to follow than the far more logically and empirically refined philosophies of buddhism and jainism. Science and logic are high persuits - something that an uncivilized society is uncapable of and something that suffers the most when institutions of learning are destroyed- which is the main reason why our civilization collapsed into the cesspool of mediocrity and retardedness it is today and has been for the last 1000 years or so.

To understand more about Advaita, for a starter one has to understand the Concept of "Brahman" (The Supreme Consciousness) and it's indifference with Atman (The perceived consciousness).

Doesnt change the fact that the whole concept of atman is unsubstantiated boolsheet.

[triam]

After Advaita was teached by Sankara what evolved in Hinduism??

[kumble_rocks]

People hardly know anything worth to distinguish between Philosophical subtle naunces of "Dvaita" (Dualism), Advaitha (Non-Dualism) and it's several discourses and commentaries which further elaborates it down into Kevala Advaitha, Vishishta Avaitha and Dvaita-Advaitha. Some jingiostic readers and their interpretation of presence of Atman as SEPERATE entity in "Jiva" is what leads to many laymans to go ashtray and make lloony conlusion that Hinduims is all about re-incarnation of Atman in "different" bodies --- when in fact it is their ignorant acceptance of "Dvaita" as Hinduisms only tradition for their own convenience. Of course Dvaita is an influencial Vedantic school of thought in Hinduism, but important to notice is it is "Advaita" and Adi Shankaras flawless commentaries on Advaita i.e. Non-Dualism, which once defeated Budhisms at philosophical level in India. That doesnot mean dvaita is rejected in Hinduism. It is Dvaita that paved way for various "reactionary to Abrahamic invasion" type movements such as Bhakti Movement, Shri Ramanuja's Vaishnavite Movement, Kashmiri Shaivism, and Bengal'a great Sadhak's like Swami Ramkrishna Paramhansa's Shakta/Shakti school of thought, Point is Hinduism is NOT about one rigid CONCLUSIVE ideology or philosophy unlike Islamism, Christo-Judaic or even Budhism. Hinduism is FREE to evlove EXACTLY like Science as and when Human consciousness evolves, NOTHING is conclusive and nothing can be conclusive through Sensual experiences of human -- that's some of the few interpretations of great Rishis and Tapasvis of Vedic and Upanishdic era. Sanatan Dharma which once was STRICTLY Yagna/Fire sacrifice based Vedic dharma evolved herself into Dvaita, seeing God or Brahman as seperate entity, bringing Bhakti movement and worship of Supreme Conscious in various "Vigraha" or "Roopa" or "Idol" and it successfully protected herself from Christian-Islamic version of "Dualist" thought. Look back at Afghanistan and what happened to them, they were Budhists and unable to evolve themselves "temporarily" and thus perished. today we are seeing those same people whose ancestors once use to be Budhist monks are now Talibanies executing people for not-believing a "Seperate" entity called Allah. Point is Hinduism evolved to protect herself from various attacks/invasions, but it's core philosophy nevethless remains in deep ocean of INCONCLUSIVE EXPERIENCE of Advaita Vedanta. To understand more about Advaita, for a starter one has to understand the Concept of "Brahman" (The Supreme Consciousness) and it's indifference with Atman (The perceived consciousness). It's not an easy task to to explain the Sanskrit commentaries in English, for most loose the meaning in translation itself. Even the term "advaita" and the meaning it carries in Indic linguistic tradition is hardly experssed by it's English translation -- non-dualism. At the end for an ordinary Hindu it is Very simple.....all is that we percieve is "Maya" (sensual perception) Onlee, so why worry, have curry :D

Good Post Sandy !:two_thumbs_up: But will not agree with the boldened statements . I blame the Islamic rulers for the death of Buddhism(due to Pali dynasty) in Afghanistan.It had nothing to do with temporary evolution and what not !

[Guest dada_rocks]

Good Post Sandy !:two_thumbs_up: But will not agree with the boldened statements . I blame the Islamic rulers for the death of Buddhism(due to Pali dynasty) in Afghanistan.It had nothing to do with temporary evolution and what not !

Islamic rulers attacked Hinduism too but they didn;t keep swearing by non-violence in face of marauding attack.. Buddhist could not reconcile with idea of defence in face of violence attack..... You have to remain alive to preach your ideology of non-violence after all and when tyou are facing an immoral army which believes in nothgin but non-vioelnce in face of ideological differences you must defend .. Buddhits failed here despite all round attack they refused to defend and met their logical end. When sandy talks about evolution he means these things I guess.. Are Jesus christ bhi nahin batata agar doosare gaal pe bhi chanta pare to kya karna chahiye.. One is free to charter its course of defence if gets slapped on other cheek too. Nonetheless top notch post by sandeep

[CC1981]

Buddhits failed here despite all round attack they refused to defend and met their logical end.

The failure wasnt in part of buddhism, since buddhism is a very individualized philosophy. And i also find it intellectually dishonest of you ( jee, what a surprise) to pronounce such categoric statements on a philosophy that you know very little of or understand very little of. There was no 'lasting glory' of defence from the Hindus - you guys got your ***** kicked hard by the continous stream of far superior skilled and armed Turko-Persian soldiers throughout the last 1000 years. Infact, i am glad that the British came and whacked everyone else because otherwise your pyaare Hinduism too would've gone the way of Zoroastrinaism in Iran : made extinct. Now contrast that to China : a nation that in pre-communist years were very much Buddhist and still have extremely deep Buddhist roots in the nation (if not at a political level). Yet this nation very successfully repelled the same turko-mongol islamists quite effectively. Like them, we too faced an west-to-east expansion of Islam but while they very successfully stopped it at a political level, India failed utterly. India and China are mirror opposites in this regard : China the most successful of the ancient civilizations, india the most raped one- and the reasons have very much to do with our lack of collective principles akin to the Chinese, though the Chinese perspective comes with its own host of problems. The failure of our civilization to resist aggressive islamisation has more to do with the inherent flaws in OUR civilization rather than Islam in itself - and neither was non-violence or secularism the problem,since ALL nations have thrived on the backs of strong armies and our Islamisation is due to our army getting categorically outclassed by the Islamists than the general benevolence of our civillian populace. The problem with you and sandy type hinduvtas is that your worldview revolves solely around religion and religious reasons, all the while ignoring the landscape outside the realms of religion.

[mhr123]

that goof is not a philosopher, he is well a goof, a very very daft goof. i mean, his logic for refuting the theory of evolution is so motherfracking dumb that i am lead to believe that his so called doctorate of medicine might be a farce.

THX... give me a video proof of were Dr. Zakir Naik refuted Evolution theory .. yah i agree that he refuted the Darwins theory of Evolution . But he agrees on Big bang, Expanding universe ....

[THX_1138]

THX... give me a video proof of were Dr. Zakir Naik refuted Evolution theory .. yah i agree that he refuted the Darwins theory of Evolution . But he agrees on Big bang' date=' Expanding universe ....[/quote'] so you think there is a distinction between darwin's theory of evolution and the evolution theory?