questions for buddhists - regd the soul

[roshan]

heres something in buddhism that i find very contradictory. buddhists believe in karma and reincarnation, but reject the idea of the soul.

1. first of all, if there is no soul(atma), then what is it that experiences the samsara(cycle of birth and rebirth)? basically, if there is no soul then what exactly is it that reincarnates? or does nothing reincarnate itself? that doesnt make sense.

2. if theres no soul, then that means the reciever of the karma in the next life is a completely new being, who has just accidentally recieved the karma of someone else. now, how is it decided who the karma will to go to?

3. if theres no soul and then you get enlightened - ok youre going to be enlightened while youre alive. but when you die, since theres no soul, youre just not going to exist anymore. so whether you get enlightened or not you will simply end up being non existent. so whats the point of looking for enlightenment?

4. the buddhas are all dead. and since there is no such thing as a soul, then that means that the buddhas no longer exist since theres nothing left when you die. so why is it that buddhists pray to the diff buddhas? arent they gone and nonexistent already? so whats the point of praying to them?

5. if the buddhas are still existing in heaven or wherever, then how come they exist when their physical bodies have been destroyed? what part of them is it that still lives on? if theres a part of them that still lives, doesnt that contradict the no soul doctrine of buddhism?

[NearNihil Experience]

"heres something in buddhism that i find very contradictory. buddhists believe in karma and reincarnation, but reject the idea of the soul. "

Depends on the Buddhist. Some do, some don't. Hindus believe in Karma and reincarnation pretty universally.
But Buddhists, at least our American ones, seem pretty diverse.
Some are theists, some are not. Some beleive in an afterlife, some do not.

Just an observation. I am not a buddhist who believes in karma and reincarnation, so I leave that up to one who does.

[roshan]

ok then. ill just wait till a buddhist who believes in karma/reincarnation but does not believe in a soul to come along.

[andy_d]

The question of identity is rather a complex one within Buddhism.

Certainly, the belief in a persistant soul is anathema to Buddhism. It's completely contrary to the notion of emptiness. By describing all things as "empty" Buddhists don't mean that they have no qualities, but rather that they have no qualities which are permanant. An eternal soul is illogical to the Buddhist view of the world, since all things are impermanant.

It's best to get the idea out of your head altogether if you want to understand Buddhist ideas. As your questions prove, mixing contradictory ideas can only lead to confusion.

I'll have a quick crack at your questions, until someone more knowledgable comes along.

1) Hmm, rebirth. Controversial subject, about which Buddhists disagree widely. The simplest answer is to say that the relation between one life and the next is similar to the relationship of a cue ball striking a billiard ball. The second takes on some of the energy/information of the first, but it is not the same ball.

2) Yes, everybody is new, but the habit of identifying strongly with one's "self" is considered a form of ignorance.

3) The point of enlightenment is to end all suffering. Simple.
NB: Buddhism is only concerned with reaching enlightenment, it has nothing to do with whatever happens after. It's merely a set of techniques to attain an objective. Once the goal is reached, it's not needed any more.

4) Who knows? :D The use of images and ideas within Buddhist practice, such as concentrating on certain Buddha forms is intended to focus the mind on those qualities within the individual practitioner's mind. It's not about getting help from supernatural beings.

5) Again, who knows? Different schools of thought abound.

Hope that helps :)

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Good questions which I found intrigueing early on in my Buddhist "career".

If we use the term soul, we're probably talking about a static, unchanging entity. A static, unchanging entity can't change. It can't become enlightened.

If however, the soul is actually a mind-stream or a consciousness-continuum, if it's a process rather than a structure then it can function as a mind, and it can evolve and hence become enlightened.

Of course we could define "the soul" as a "mind-stream" and then the concept would not be anathema to buddhism but the generally accepted definition or understanding of the word "soul" does actually make it unfeasible for buddhism.

Personally I believe that I am a continuation of a series of instants of consciousness. I wasn't me last time around, I was somebody else (obviously) but the me now is a well evolved continuation of the what-I-was-then.

I am a reasonably critical person, I don't like contradictory type bullshit or incoherence in philosophy or dogma and I am satisfied with this aspect of Buddhism.

If what I have written here does not clarify anything for you, please do not blame Buddhism, blame me.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Waning Moon Conrad beat me to it. I wrote this down but posting it just now :)
------------------------------------------
Firstly, Karma which gives rise to Bondage and thus Samsara are Key teachings of Buddhism - All schools.

If Karma and Samasara are not believed it, there is no point of believing in Nirvana.. thus there is no need of Dhamma to be followed. To cut short, Buddhism requires belief in Kamma and Samasara. If somebody rejectes these two, I don't think there is much of Buddhism left for him/her to follow.

Now, to the question of An-atman or Non-Self.

There is no Self. Buddha has made this clear. For there is no 'Absolute factor' or 'Permanent entity'. Everything is flux. Thus there can be no permanent 'Soul'.

He also said that Dhamma and his teachings are "hard to perceive, hard to understand." He had also firmly taught that to speculate on the origin, fate and nature of the Universe is useless for the task/goal at hand. For those are beyond comprehension unless Nirvana is attained and even if understood, are not conductive to any result.

---------------------------
1. What reincarnates? well, the word 'reincarnation' itself is wrong if used in Buddhist sense. Only if we use the word reincarnation, does the question arise- what reincarnates.
There is no reincarnation of 'anything'. Nor is there a trans-migration of something. There is only a constant stream of consciosness that flows from one existence to another. Many teachers liken it to the river Ganges which is one continouse stream yet flowing through various regions, taking up various shapes and sizes etc. The Existence of Sentinent beings is the 'consiousness' that flows.. the Mind that is. Nothing else transmigrates.

Let us go back to the basis of Buddhist cosmology - The Theory of Interdependent Existence or Interdependent Arising.- Pratitya Samutpada.
"Interdependent arising does not refer to a temporal succession but rather to the essential interdependence of all things."
There is no beginning nor is there an end. Everything is a product of its effect and this product becomes the effect of something else. Every singular thing has *multiple* origins or sources. Every thing is a product of *multiple* effects. Thus there is inter-dependence between each and every existing material in this Universe. Everything affects each other and thus there is a continous flux, change, continous stream of manifestation, etc. One such manifestation is that what we call 'life' or 'consiousness'.

This steam of consiousness along with the twelve links of interdependent arising, gives rise to that phenomenon which we call, continous birth and death and rebirth - the samsara.

The Twelve Links of Interdependent Arising are:
-------------------- I quote from a Srilankan text source -------------------------

(1) Ignorance, of the true nature of reality, causes us to continuously engage in (2) Activities such as moral or immoral actions. These actions accumulate as karmic seeds and habits. This karma in turn causes (3) Rebirth. So, one's consciousness arises once again in another body. The sentient being possesses a (4) Mind that differentiates matter as being an external object. This differentiation gives rise to the (5) Six senses, which are the mind, sight, sound, taste, touch and smell. Once the senses are intact and functioning, the sentient being comes into
(6) Contact with external phenomena. Contact with external objects generates (7) Feelings of like or dislike. These feelings create a(8) Craving for certain phenomena. Craving leads to (9) Attachment to pleasing phenomena. (10) Once a sentient being desires certain phenomena, they perform actions in an attempt to obtain their desire. Such actions accumulate karmic seeds and habits which then will lead to, in the future,(11) Birth and(12) Death.

Once birth (and death) occurs, a sentient being will once again cycle through these twelve links.

Due to the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, sentient beings undergo the coming together of the Five Aggregates of Existence: form, feeling, mental conceptualization, volition and the mind consciousness. Living beings are like a monkey stuck in a cage, believing that these five aggregates constitute a self. However, they are merely deceiving themselves.

Beings ignorantly think that their own perception is the only real perception, that their thoughts are the only correct ideas and that their selfish desires must be fulfilled first. Such concepts form and build up, leading to a state filled with agitation, attachment and aversion.

The belief in and and attachment to an ego is a blind concept. It is just like those who blindly follow a fanatical cult. Though, the cult here is that of a selfish ego.

------------ End Quote ------------------------

2. The receiver of the Karma is NOT a completely new being since we have already seen that everything is interconnected. This new being is connected to his former existence by the thread of Karma which is one of the subtle-bodies that accompany the formation of a new body and determine the nature of the body, birth, etc.

We are connected to our former existences much more strongly than we are connected to everything else in this universe. Thus this connection, the reason of which is Karma forms a continous stream.

3. Enlightenment is not a state of existence. Therefore there is nothing to exist. The concept of Existence in perpetuality itself is an Illusion. For when the concept of 'I' or 'self' dissapears, what is left to die or live forever?

Nibbana or Nirvana is a state of complete 'stillness' or 'quietness'. When no actions are made and thus no Karma generated. Buddha put it in this way- it is neither this nor that - it is neither life nor death- it is neither existence nor non-existence.

Pretty confusing aint' it? he he

4,5. Buddhas are not 'dead' for there is no absolute end for anything. Nothing goes out of existence. IIIrd law of Thermodynamics in buddhism makes complete sense :)

Buddhists don't pray to Buddha as such. But some schools have theistic conceptions of Buddhas wantingly pausing on their way to Nibbana - something like they purposefully have stayed their path to nibbana to assist and help Humanity and other beings on Compassionate grounds.

Such Buddhas, out of Compassion exist in a state of Arahant but yet have not mitigated their whole existence.
They do not possess physical bodies, but bodies of pure consciousness. This is not a 'left over part' from their former existences, but a temporary state of being that they, of their knowledge gained from enlightenment, have created for themselves.

We find in Buddhist cosmology, mentioning of limitless, countless planets and systems where numberless types of existences are possible. Some existences are hellish which some are heavenly, all, temporary.
In some systems, sentinent beings possess material bodies, just as we possess bodies made of gross elements, but there are other highter beings, like the Devas, Brahma and other denizens of Heavenly realms who possess bodies made of the mind, or air or light, etc.
----------------

Anyway, I think these type of questions are best put forth directly 'live' to a properly initiated Monk or a Guru. It can be a great interactive experience. Not to forget that the answers to such questions are not necessarity to be taken as truth.

One has to meditate upon the teachings of Buddha and if one finds them acceptable after deep contemplation and meditation, they should be followed upon. Thus, the key to understanding is deep meditation.

Thank you.

[premjan]

so reincarnation is not of the soul or the self (which are nonexistent) but of karma. it is original sin which reincarnates from generation to generation (spiritual or physical) until it is erased by a bodhisattva.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by premjan
so reincarnation is not of the soul or the self (which are nonexistent) but of karma. it is original sin which reincarnates from generation to generation (spiritual or physical) until it is erased by a bodhisattva.

Well the word 'original sin' smacks of the Christian concept, but Karma is timeless and is not the same as 'sin'.

It is just the cycle of action and reaction. If a being or thing engages in action, it will reap the result of that action. That will fuel more action, and thus the cycle of continous action and reaction constitutes Karma and this phenomenon is Samsara.

Nibbana is cessation of all action and thus there is no reaction.

The Nibbana is bought about by ONESELF. No bodhisattva nor Buddha can erase this Samsara. They only Guide out of compassion. Gurus, they are, not God.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by premjan
so reincarnation is not of the soul or the self (which are nonexistent) but of karma. it is original sin which reincarnates from generation to generation (spiritual or physical) until it is erased by a bodhisattva.

The word karma means action. It has also been translated as volitional momentum.

The mental-continuum or stream-of-consciousness transmigrates but the type of existence is finds itself in is conditioned by the karma it has accumulated/generated/created.

It would be worth reading Dr Jagan Mohan's post again and a even a third or fourth time.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by Dr. Jagan Mohan
Firstly, Karma which gives rise to Bondage and thus Samsara are Key teachings of Buddhism - All schools.

............................etc etc etc through to .....................

One has to meditate upon the teachings of Buddha and if one finds them acceptable after deep contemplation and meditation, they should be followed upon. Thus, the key to understanding is deep meditation.

Thank you.

:notworthy Thank you! That was bloody brilliant! :notworthy

[premjan]

I guess I think of karma as "thoughtless actions". Ones which lead to unintended and harmful consequences. The "right" actions lead only to positive consequences, hence I guess no karma really accumulates from them.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Wow, Thank you Waning Moon Conrad, you making me feel great already :) - must remember - modesty is the greatest virtue - or else it may go to the head and make on feel snobbish :)

Premjan,
All actions, irrespective of being good or bad produce Karma.

There is actually a small difficulty in understanding the Buddhist/Hindu notions about Deliberate actions vs. Actions done without Intention.

Intention itself.. the thought process itself generates Karma too.

FOr example, if I bear thoughts of Killing somebody, that though itself will bring Karma even though I might not commit that murder.

That is why we say, Ahimsa should be non-violence in Deed, Speech as well as Thought.

For Thought is the seed of Action.

If something is done unintended, the Karmic consequences are still there, although very weak compared to the same action done with intention.

The Key therefore is Intention, but yet Karmic effects are for all actions.. even for 'right' actions.

Nibbana/Nirvana is cessation of *all* Karmas - both good and bad.
Gathering just good Karmas will promote one's standard of living (like to Heavenly planets) but they entirely do not guarantee Nibbana.

That is even if you are a good person, doing charity and other good works, it is no gaurantee of Salvation. For Nibbana is connected to Right Knowledge too.. Just like in Hinduism, Moksha is connected to Jnana or cognition of the Ultimate Truth.

[premjan]

well, now the Buddha did not suddenly become a tree the instant he gained nirvana. he was still teaching people for many decades after that. so it technically does not make real sense. of course I have heard that once you gain nirvana you are only channelling the karma of other people and have given up generating it on your own.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

I think you haven't yet understood Nirvana. It is not a state to be 'gained'. It is not some position... not even existence.

Siddharta claimed to be 'Buddha' or the Awakened One. He does not say he 'attained Nirvana'.
There is a difference.

Buddha is a state of awareness. Siddharta attained that state of awareness under the Bodhi. That Buddha state paves way for his Nirvana.
Buddha existed physically as long as his physical body remained alive, and therefore his consciosness too did, but that birth is/was his last. Attainment of Nirvana never means suddenly giving up life or going out of existence. One can attain Nirvana and yet carry on with life at hand.

When somebody asked him if he was a Arahant, He replied that there is no answer to that question for when the self is destroyed, what or who is Arahant? Nobody can claim to be a Arahant or attained Nirvana, for that itself means that person is still egoistic or identifies himself with his self, which is illusionary.

Now, that can produce a question - what attains Nirvana? Such questions are only for those who prefer to stand on the side rails, ask questions, satisfy their curiosity and go their way. The answers can only be found by deeper contemplation and serious thought/meditation, just as solutions for various Mathematical problems can be found only by mental concentration.... unlike blind faith or dogma.

[roshan]

after it is put in that way it makes sense. it was the word "reincarnation" which was confusing me. i suppose that it is not appropriate for describing buddhist concepts.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

I don't think that nirvana is necessarily the cessation of actions as such as certainly not the cessation of consciousness. It's the extinction of craving and the cessation of creation of karma.

That's my opinion based on my limited understanding anyway.

[aditya]

Originally posted by roshan
heres something in buddhism that i find very contradictory. buddhists believe in karma and reincarnation, but reject the idea of the soul.

1. first of all, if there is no soul(atma), then what is it that experiences the samsara(cycle of birth and rebirth)? basically, if there is no soul then what exactly is it that reincarnates? or does nothing reincarnate itself? that doesn't make sense.

Let me handle this question in my own way since I am not Buddhist but consider myself undergoing the same kind of thought process as any intelligent person who wants to think ab initio in Des Cartesian fashion.
I also reject the existence of any god or soul.

Having said that, let me also point out that there is nothing eternal like the proverbial river under the bridge.

If you take your own body, all the cells keep regenerating and after a certain time not a single cell in your body is left with what your were born with. In a sense what you may call 'self or me' keeps changing every moment.
Mathematically speaking 'self' is just a process and not an entity.
It has become more easy to understand with the advancement of sciences. If a person gets his heart, lung, liver etc replaced due to their becoming diseased and getting them from various donors then what happens to this person. Does he get the self the person who donated their organs?
What is continuing is only a process of gene reincarnation and that is the basis to all evolution. All species try to carry on their genes. We are nothing but a vehicle to pass on our genes from one generation to the next.
In the same way once we get to realize this process of evolution itself we become enlightened and stop worrying about day to day events and sufferings.

[karthik]

not to side-track this, but can anyone comment on similarities/differences between buddhist thought and advaita philosophy? My limited knowledge leads me to believe that there are similarities between them in that they are non-dualist in nature, they dont ascribe attributes to things, they prescribe meditation/contemplation in attaining nirvana/moksha. And the differences are in the affirmation in soul in advaita that doesnt exist in buddhism, advaitic belief in brahman and that all things are nothing but manifestations of the brahman while buddhism doesnt believe in this supreme entity. Is buddhism more like 'how do I alleviate my suffering, I dont care about how it originated'??

[shivalinga]

if you are trying to understand buddhist thought and
keep feeling something is missing,you figured it out.

Buddhism is illogical,it least the buddhism that is called that today,
it is madness with philosophy.

Karma and samsara(reincarnation ,not reincarnation,why not
call it maurice ?) are both dependent on will, Karma
means where there is a will there is a way,otherwise
who and what process decides the birth of your next life ?,
gibberish like saying continuation of consciousness
is not reincarnation is ..well...gibberish.

We are not the mind,as you read these words there is a
silent voice in your head "speaking" these words, that is
the mind,"you" the conscious entity ,soul,atma,
is comprehending the meaning of these words
through the mind,memory and intellect, but "you"
are the "emptiness" or "receptacle" utilizing these various "technologies",
"you" are a conscious being,when "you" reincarnate
"you" reincarnate, you can say it any way you like,
but it means the same thing.

So any kind of reincarnation or whatever continuing "youness"
that is Karmic, by necessity must include a diety,a god,
some kind of mechanism to decide where,when,how and
if you will continue existing, without a deciding and
doing entity there is no possibility of rebirth,rebirth
by karma means you are placed where the karmic
process puts you, that means it is intelligent,that means
it is a conscious thing or god.

So buddhism without god is illogical and nonsensical,without
a mechanism to control the karmic decision making
there can be no karma,karma means you reap what you sow,
therefore there has to be a line judge,a referee, some
kind of judgement making entity with the ability to enforce
your karmic destiny,otherwise the whole thing
is poop.

the same goes for the advaitist,you cannot have karma
or reincarnation without control,control means controller,
controller means intelligence,which means God.

period.

enlightenment means free from delusions of what
is and what is not reality, to become a bodhisattva
means you cease to IDENTIFY the self or YOU with
the mind,intellect,emotions,body etc.

YOU do not cease to exist,you simply do not identify
YOU with your mind,body,etc.

YOU identify yourself with the ONE universal
consciousness or beingness,in other words you realize
that you are not alone,you are not in control,you are
part of a beingness that is more then YOU.

So in that sense YOU do not exist,but in fact YOU do exist,
so we have a situation here,in fact buddhism cannot fully
explain reality,and buddhism admits this.

In reality YOU exist,and when enlightened you simply
realize that YOU are part of another being,your consciousness
is part of a larger fuller being and in fact YOU share
your conscious YOUNESS with everyone and everything else.

this is why nirvana or moksa is called becoming non existence,
it really means you become free from seeing your self
as an individual and instead see yourself as a manifestation
of another being,YOU do not cease to exist,Your concept
of existing as YOU ALONE vanishes,so in that sense YOU
cease to exist, the drop of water in the ocean realizes
that it is part of the ocean and its individuality is an illusion,
it still exists but it realizes it's part of a much larger reality.

of course without god,you might as well forget all
of these ideas.

[premjan]

Well, this superconsciousness is not "God", it is just the big distributed megasoftware in the sky, the distributed program running on all human brains. The extent to which there is a single program, depends also on conscious coordination between different minds. It is conceptually possible to consider that all minds are part of a single software process. In practice, however, they usually behave like a billion separate communicating entities, each working on its own thing.

Of course, if you are being more metaphorical, then all the stuff in the universe is mind. The minds are just more mindlike and the rest of the inanimate stuff is more matterlike, nevertheless a little mindlike too.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by shivalinga
if you are trying to understand buddhist thought and
keep feeling something is missing,you figured it out.

Buddhism is illogical,it least the buddhism that is called that today,
it is madness with philosophy.

Shivalinga, I must disagree with you.

You are from California so let me put it in this way briefly:

Just like many identify Open Source Software with just the 'Free of Cost' label, You are making a Mistake.

Open Source primarily means the Freedom... freedom to modify, tweak, play, distribute, and generally do whatever you want to as long as you keep those credits intact and distribute the sourcecode too. Right?

Similarly, Buddhism should not be identified primarily with the dry Philosophy that comes with it.
Philosophy is only the tool to justify Buddha's teachings. It is not an end in itself. It has no Use and of no consequence to search for the 'Theory of Everything'.. said Buddha.

Buddha did not intend Buddhism to be a 'intellectual, Dry Speculative, Philosophical' religion. Far from it, He wanted people NOT to follow tough Ascetic lives but instead stay on the MIDDLE PATH.

Easy it is: All you have to do to be a Buddhist is to tread in the Middle path without leaning to either sides. Do Dharmic things and keep away from creating new negative Karma while working to decrease Karmic reactions altogether.

He purposefully kept silent on the question of GOD since he knew that God means Dogma, Faith will become blind and ceremonies/rituals etc will take over real Hardwork and thus, no real progression for Man.

Buddha says simple things: Man is the author of his own destiny. Let him work hard to escape from this cycle of pain and peasure. By adopting the Middle path.

Thats is all Buddhism is.
Not some illogical madness with Philosophy :( :rolleyes:

:)

[premjan]

Buddha's philosophy is a real solution to the problem of human differences. Though it sometimes went overboard to the accusation of nihilism, it provides a real solution to the problem of superficial distinctions that man persists in making despite everything.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

thank you for the good posts.

everything that i post is to sustain my own understanding, though i am destiute of learning and devoid of skill with words.

i think i should point out, at this time, that it's a specific type of consciouness that is reborn, specifically, the Alaya consciousness. which is also known as the "storehouse" consciousness. this is where the karmic imprints are stored in their habitual patterns.

karma in the buddhist sense is not the same as karma in the Hindu sense. generally speaking, it is tough to say that definitively since Hinduism is a large body of teachings. in any event, we can be rather general and talk about our points.

karma in the Hindu sense is something that cannot really be changed all that much. it can be mitigated to a certain degree, however, there is no escaping it. Buddhism does not have that view. in the Buddhist understanding of Karma, it is not something that unchangeable.. in point of fact, that is exactly what we are trying to undercut through our practice.

furthermore, reincarnation is not the proper term with regards to Buddhism. the proper term is "rebirth". reincarnation tends to imply that there is something inside of us that moves from one body to the next, and this "mover" is the same in each of these forms. Buddhism specifically refutes this position of an unchanging mover, known as the Atman doctrine in Hindu thought.

karthic... well.. it depends... as there are 4 main philosophical positions that one can have in regards to Buddhist philosophy. my particular tradition adheres to the Prasangkia-Madyamika philosophical school, though i'm sure that there are other schools represented on here.

the use of images, statues and so forth, in my tradition at least, is to help orient the mind to the completion stage. they represent idealized or enlightened aspects of mind, such as Compassion (Avolekiteshavara) Wisdom (Manjurshi) and so forth.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

If people would actually bother to study the Buddhist teachings on karma and what it actually is, they might manage to avoid making all sorts of unfounded assertions.

They might also manage to be less adamant and dogmatic with their necessity-of-god type notions.

[beanpie]

If people would actually bother to study the Buddhist teachings on karma and what it actually is, they might manage to avoid making all sorts of unfounded assertions.

They might also manage to be less adamant and dogmatic with their necessity-of-god type notions.

I am not very knowledgable, on "Buddahism". The following site, may assist...

http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/whatbudbeliev/115.htm

The Soul Theory
What Buddhists Believe

[beanpie]

Thats is all Buddhism is.

you explained it so plainly, even a fool, could understand. :)

[sweep]

Beings ignorantly think that their own perception is the only real perception, that their thoughts are the only correct ideas and that their selfish desires must be fulfilled first. Such concepts form and build up, leading to a state filled with agitation, attachment and aversion.
what is one to do?


if I bear thoughts of Killing somebody, that though itself will bring Karma even though I might not commit that murder. you condemn me to suffer and worry with these words, my friend. far be it for me to shoot the messenger though, and I am responsible for my own terrible sickness.

you explained it so plainly, even a fool, could understand an honest tale speeds best, being plainly told.

[premjan]

I think Buddhism fails on at least one ground: since it blames ignorance and attachment for dukkha, it condemns the average human being to be incapable of being a true Buddhist. This is evidently the reason also why people built huge statues of Buddha. The inability of the average nonphilosopher to follow in Buddha's path was so great, that they preferred rather to worship him. For such average souls, the worship of a Godlike figure might as well consider Krishna or Jesus as a deity instead of Buddha. What could be the difference, other than that in the case of Buddha-worship we believe we will eventually become like Buddha, if not soon. In the case of Krishna, he is God and hence unapproachable. A strict dualism, separation of God and man, as in the case of Madhava, would be more appropriate. In the case of Jesus again, Jesus was the unique perfect incarnation (son of God) hence we should not attempt to approach his level of divinity, since we would be doomed to fail. Hence Buddha remains a little unapproachable as an example. It is said no physical human has attained his level of awakening or nirvana. In comparison, Hinduism always postulates many avataras for every deity (e.g. Shankara was an avatara of Shiva) hence making the whole thing a lot more approachable. However, Buddhism does retain its draw in that it is nonclassist and noncasteist, and casteism is a fate that Shankara's philosophy distinctly did not escape.

[Answerer]

Hi guys, its been long since I visited this non-Abrahamic thread because I knew that I tend to use up lots of time here.......((a luxury which I could no longer afford)

The question of soul and rebirth( I won't use the word recarnation which means migration of souls) could be sumed up by the following examples:

"A fire burns and is extinguished, one cannot say that it went to any of the four directions. When no more fuel is added, it ceases to burn."

"A ball is rolled against the last stationary ball, the moving ball will stop dead and the foremost stationary ball will move on. The first moving does not pass over, it remains behind, it dies; but it is undeniably the movement of the ball, its momentum, its karma and not any newly created movemnt that is reborn in the foremost ball."

" If we are asked, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no', if we are asked whther the electron position changes with time, we must say 'no', if we are asked whther the electron is at rest, we must say 'no', if we are asked whether the electron is in action, we must say 'no'.

The above pretty summed up the buddhist belief in rebirth.


Originally posted by premjan
I think Buddhism fails on at least one ground: since it blames ignorance and attachment for dukkha, it condemns the average human being to be incapable of being a true Buddhist. This is evidently the reason also why people built huge statues of Buddha. The inability of the average nonphilosopher to follow in Buddha's path was so great, that they preferred rather to worship him.

No, Buddhism never condemn. Not everyone is expected to follow Dharma to the full extend. Buddhism works as long as one is determined and diligent, not only because of one's inherent abilities.

People build Buddha statue is not purely due to respect and worship but also as a constant reminder that all humans could inspire to be a Buddha as long as he or she has the will to do so.


In the case of Jesus again, Jesus was the unique perfect incarnation (son of God) hence we should not attempt to approach his level of divinity, since we would be doomed to fail. Hence Buddha remains a little unapproachable as an example. It is said no physical human has attained his level of awakening or nirvana .

There had been Buddhas in the distinct past. The existence of arahats have shown that attainment to near His level of awakening within a lifetime is possible. If Buddha is regarded as unapproachable, it is only because when people expects him to hold unimaginable power to change the world.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Answerer! Keep popping in once in a while please. Your posts are well appreciated if you need to know.

[premjan]

I guess trying to become a Buddha does give a person something to keep on striving for in life, no matter how long it takes. It all depends on the attitude that you take.

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by premjan
I guess trying to become a Buddha does give a person something to keep on striving for in life, no matter how long it takes. It all depends on the attitude that you take.


Namaste premjan,

remember.. there are at least three main schools of thought with regards to Buddhism and it's rather difficult to go far beyond the basics and have them all agree.

in the Hinyana schools, it is held that nobody can achieve Buddhahood themselves and as such, should strive for Arhat, a Foe Destroyer. This is said to take three major kalpas.

the Mahayana, on the other hand, say that indeed, one can become a Buddha, however, the Arhat path is not capable of producing it, thus one must engage in the Bodhisattva path. This is also said to take three major kalpas.

in the Vajrayana, though, this is not the case. it is believed that Buddhahood can be attained by anyone and it can be attained in one lifetime.

now, it should be properly said that within the Vajrayana tradition it is held that one has already engaged in the Hinyana path and the Mahayana path prior to this life and this is why one can practice the profound Vajrayana.

now... i suppose that it should be said that, depending on one's school, there are other beings that have attained the same attainment as Guatama Buddha.

from my schools point of view, for instance, Nagarjuna is considered to be a fully enlightened being.

[premjan]

I think Nagarjuna was again intermediate between Buddha and Shankara.

Nagarjuna claimed that samsara = nirvana. This was a deviation from Buddha's doctrine who claimed that samsara was sorrow and nirvana was release from sorrow. Both claimed that there was no self.

Shankara on the other hand claimed that there was an atman or self, however it was equivalent to brahman (or world).

[Answerer]

Originally posted by premjan
I think Nagarjuna was again intermediate between Buddha and Shankara.

Nagarjuna claimed that samsara = nirvana. This was a deviation from Buddha's doctrine who claimed that samsara was sorrow and nirvana was release from sorrow. Both claimed that there was no self.



Nirvana is deprived of an independent existence as samara is. Therefore Nagarjuna is right in his own ways of argument. Besides the Dharma is never a dogma and Buddha's words hold different meanings for different individuals.

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by premjan
I think Nagarjuna was again intermediate between Buddha and Shankara.

Nagarjuna claimed that samsara = nirvana. This was a deviation from Buddha's doctrine who claimed that samsara was sorrow and nirvana was release from sorrow. Both claimed that there was no self.

Shankara on the other hand claimed that there was an atman or self, however it was equivalent to brahman (or world).

Namaste premjan,

actually, Nagarjuna fully developed the Madhyamaka philosophical school. the entire Prajnaparamita discourse is about the sameness of samsara and nirvana. this particular discourse has one particular Sutra that is quite famous, the Heart Sutra, which is a foundational teaching in the Mahayana schools.

the Prajnaparamita discourses are part of the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma and correspond with the exposition of emptiness of self and phenomena, not self alone. the emptiness of self alone is the ground path of the Hinyana school.

[premjan]

and then a third philosopher (often accused of being Buddhist except in name) by the name of Shankara says there is a self, except it is actually the same as the world (thereby a weak but rather expansive self). Sounds like so much wordplay in retrospect, doesn't it?

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by premjan
and then a third philosopher (often accused of being Buddhist except in name) by the name of Shankara says there is a self, except it is actually the same as the world (thereby a weak but rather expansive self). Sounds like so much wordplay in retrospect, doesn't it?

Namaste Premjan,


Madhyamikas think that concepts are contradictory and say nothing about realities. The Yogacharas, taking their clue from the contradiction of concepts exhibited by the Madhyamikas, believe in the non-existence of objects. They argue that, if the concepts are contradictory and unreal, how can there be real objects corresponding to these concepts? Thus, the consciousness which is aware of this contradiction alone is real. There is a real, not that it is warranted by contradictory concepts, but because it is presupposed by contradiction itself.

Shankara's position is different from these two systems. He agreed with Yogachara idealism so far as the presupposition of contradictions, i.e., consciousness (atman), is concerned. But he found it difficult to agree with them on the unreality of the objective world. He thought that if concepts are contradictory their contradiction must be judged from the standard of something non-contradictory: How can we brand a concept contradictory unless we have a scale which itself is free from contradiction? Further, this scale should not be another concept because it would be ex hypothesi contradictory. Hence, it must be a unique real. With reference to this real, concepts are contradictory, but the real behind them is asserted at every step. On the objective side, too, there is a real which is correlated to the subjective counterpart, the atman. Brahman is a
subject-object correlation.

Hence, Shankara's philosophy is a synthesis of empiricism and rationalism, realism and conceptualism. Madhyamikas refuse to venture into the realm of metaphysics. They think that contradiction does not presuppose a consciousness, because such a consciousness (vijnana or atman) would not be separated from the concept of it. Similarly, the standard of contradiction should not be sought somewhere outside the pale of concepts, because we cannot go beyond concepts. Hence, contradiction should be taken as a fact about concepts and should nor be explained in terms of something non-contradictory. When every concept, without exception, is shown to be contradictory, the very concept of contradiction itself is contradicted. Thus, ultimately there is no contradiction, because there is nothing to be contradicted.


for more information, the interested reader is directed to this site:
http://www.khandro.net/Bud_philo_Madhyamika.htm

[premjan]

all these philosophies turned into actual religions, and confused people for centuries, when a little bit of modern science/AI could have cleared up the categorical mess easily. I mean Shankara could easily have gone the extra distance into real objectivism and shown the real importance of objects over pure subjects, but there wasn't enough scientific enquiry in his day to make that possibility look important. The Buddha of course wanted to erase the problem of nonsense categories, but he didn't see the social upheaval that pure monasticism eventually caused (which led to the death of his philosophy in some places). It is all the intermediate stages of thought that are historically the problem. A little knowledge isa dangerous thing.

[cybergeek]

The concept of a unchanging personality or soul it seems is
non-existent in buddhist philosophy.
As some of the comments indicate that which survives and moves
on is always changing and therefore never stays the same.

One can see this in everyday life as well.
Over a period of time our personalities change as well.
We are not the same person we were years ago.
If you compared yourself now to what you were as a 5 yr old
or a teenager then you can see some obvious differences.

As time goes on our interests and hobbies might change.
Our relationships with others can alter with the passage of
time.
So can our opinions and personal beliefs.

This is the analogy I can use to illustrate the buddhist concept
of spiritual change as opposed to an unchanging static soul.
:D

[Autieri]

I have some questions regarding the various discussions taking place here. I find Buddhism quite interesting, but I have reservations.

For one, how do we know that karma exists? What evidence is there for it, beyond that Buddha told us about it? I understand how actions generate reactions, but don't understand how it is that reactions are delayed for possibly several lifetimes before manifesting. Generally speaking, a reaction should follow the action immediately. Who is "keeping score" of all the millions of thoughts I'm having? This is smacks of "divine justice" to me -- bad guys are punished and good guys get the rewards. Yet I don't see this sort of justice operating in the natural world around me.

Secondly, how do we know anything at all about rebirth, or anything else that happens after death? No one I know of has ever returned from the dead with a report. Even if rebirth could be demonstrated beyond doubt, how could you ever demonstrate that murders are reborn in hell and good guys are reborn as heavenly gods?

Without a belief in karma and rebirth, Buddhism just doesn't work. I think that was mentioned in an earlier post. As far as I can see, these things have to be taken on faith. But isn't it a hallmark of Buddhism that Buddha exhorted us to make our own investigations and not to accept things as true for any other reasons, including faith? The assertions of rebirth and karma absolutely have to be taken on faith. So this creates a contradiction for me.

It's not my intention to make light of Buddhism. But I'm really struggling with it. My intial attraction to Buddhism was its apparently rational approach to practical problems. But as I look at it more closely, I find a lot of very fabulous beliefs, like rebirth and karma.

Since I'm a newbie to these boards, I hope I've conducted myself appropriately. I just have these questions, and a little debate might help me see things differently.

[premjan]

what is reborn is the collective "symbol stream" represented by individual human personality and culture. when a person dies, their modes of thought and expression are still present among their "associates" and loved ones and so on. The mental attitudes of these people literally resurrect the behavior of the dead person in others, if not in a single person, then the piecemeal behaviors end up showing up in others as a self-fulfilling kind of thinking. karma is the process of adding new symbols to the stream. when you have achieved spiritual release, your internal symbol manipulators have reached the level of precision where they "ride the wave" of symbols or karma and no longer have a tendency to sink (i.e. create new waves).

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Autieri
For one, how do we know that karma exists? What evidence is there for it, beyond that Buddha told us about it? I understand how actions generate reactions, but don't understand how it is that reactions are delayed for possibly several lifetimes before manifesting. Generally speaking, a reaction should follow the action immediately. Who is "keeping score" of all the millions of thoughts I'm having?

First off, scepticism is good, and was encouraged by the Buddha :)

Second, you ask "who is keeping score?" Simple. You are.

Basically, our state of mind at any given time is strongly influenced by our previous thoughts and mental habits. Every deed or thought is considered to create a corresponding impression within the mind. These impressions then affect our subsequent thoughts and actions. Constant negative thoughts and behaviour build up a lot of harmful impressions in the mind, which affect your future thoughts, and the corresponding activity created by them. Sometimes these impressions take a while to mature, sometimes they don't.

So it's not about karma being imposed by an external source for the purpose of justice. It's just that our own bad habits will cause us to continue to act in a negative way in the future. Likewise, building up a store of positive impressions and experiences will allow us to act more positively in the future.

It's also worth mentioning that not everything has a karmic cause. Sometimes shit really does just happen :)

It's really quite a simple concept. I find people who're trying to understand the Buddhist viewpoint tend to overthink it. They expect it to be some supernatural cosmic phenomenon, when it's actually a very mundane thing that we see in ourselves every day.

[premjan]

that makes a lot of sense: karma is just your own internal tally of your own actions. what you do you will tend to do again.

[Answerer]

Originally posted by Autieri


For one, how do we know that karma exists? What evidence is there for it, beyond that Buddha told us about it? I understand how actions generate reactions, but don't understand how it is that reactions are delayed for possibly several lifetimes before manifesting. Generally speaking, a reaction should follow the action immediately. Who is "keeping score" of all the millions of thoughts I'm having? This is smacks of "divine justice" to me -- bad guys are punished and good guys get the rewards. Yet I don't see this sort of justice operating in the natural world around me.

I see, did you regret any actions you have done over your past? If so, its result of bad karma. What you done in the society will eventually affect your social circles, outlooks and influences on other people, this is again examples of Karma. Of course, karma isn't limited to just one life, thats why sometimes good guys get punished while badies get the rewards, all because of what they have done in their past lives. Besides, bad guys' reputation tend to be infamous while they tend to attract the attention of those with the evil intentions. Their lives will be full of rivalry, tensions and stress, hardly a day of peace or happiness. Get a book about underworld triad leaders or tyrants to convince yourself.

Then again, karma works in a mysterious way, I can't actually tell you how it works except it is more of a form of cause and effect than divine justice. Simply put, you just reap what you sows. So, consider your choice well.


Secondly, how do we know anything at all about rebirth, or anything else that happens after death? No one I know of has ever returned from the dead with a report. Even if rebirth could be demonstrated beyond doubt, how could you ever demonstrate that murders are reborn in hell and good guys are reborn as heavenly gods?

Some Arhats remember their past lives and some of such cases happen in Tibet. Then again, if anyone were to claim they can recall their past lives, I doubt anyone, including me, will believe him 100%. Nevertheless, no scientist has yet to disprove the existence of rebirth.

As I had said before, I can't really tell you where a person go if he is dead. First of all, I don't know actually what are his merits or sins. Next, where he goes also depends strongly on his state of mind at his point of death, not just his past actions alone. If he was in state of intense fear or anger, I'm afraid such strong negative emotion will only draw him to the realms of the undesirable.


Without a belief in karma and rebirth, Buddhism just doesn't work. I think that was mentioned in an earlier post. As far as I can see, these things have to be taken on faith. But isn't it a hallmark of Buddhism that Buddha exhorted us to make our own investigations and not to accept things as true for any other reasons, including faith? The assertions of rebirth and karma absolutely have to be taken on faith. So this creates a contradiction for me.

Nah, some people believe Buddhism without giving a damn to karma and rebirth like some of my friends since it is some of the best things around us.

But most people started off believing in praying mantras, karma and rebirth before developing a faith in Buddhas. Then they attract to higher stages of Dharma like the non-conditional state of things and minds, deep insight mediation and unverisal compassion. From here onwards, some people will revere the path of Dharma more and inspired to be Arhats or Buddhas, themselves, hence developing a 'higher' sense of faith than before.

Upon attaining Arhats, those fortunate few will see pass the illusion of faith and reality and is unlikely to be misguided by it.


It's not my intention to make light of Buddhism. But I'm really struggling with it. My intial attraction to Buddhism was its apparently rational approach to practical problems. But as I look at it more closely, I find a lot of very fabulous beliefs, like rebirth and karma.


Its really your choice, you don't have to believe in rebirth and karma to be a buddhist. Just like you don't have to be a buddhist to gain enlightenment. To tell you the truth, I don't take the life of Buddha and other famous Buddhism stories literally as well. By the way, remember this, no one can make you give up Dharma or Buddhism, only you, yourself, have this power.

Anyway, welcome to the board, newbie. Hope you find the infidels interesting........LOL................

[premjan]

I think mental processes are to some extent independent of our physical bodies (kind of like migrating software processes). This is why another person's good and bad thoughts are easily transmitted to us, whether we like it or not. A human society is more like a computer network.

[Autieri]

Thanks to everyone for replying so quickly.

Answerer, I have a lot of questions still. Thank you for your very thorough reply. But here is where I disagree.

did you regret any actions you have done over your past? If so, its result of bad karma. What you done in the society will eventually affect your social circles, outlooks and influences on other people, this is again examples of Karma.

I have regretted things done in the past. But this is not how I understand karma. In this instance, I would be reacting to a recollection of a past event. How is this bad karma? What if I am regretting not killings someone rather than just beating them up? That instance of regret cannot be bad karma at work.

Also, while I agree that my actions will influence the wider world around me, I don't see that as karma. My actions would have to impact my surroundings, of course. But this is just natural. If karma is simply saying that what you think and do are likely to lead to a similar result (i.e. always thinking about stealing eventually leads me to steal), then I can accept that. But it hardly seems the definition of karma given by the Buddha.

In the Dhammapada, the Buddha has an entire chapter given over to hell as punishments for "transgressions." Chapter 22, verse 1 reads: "One who speaks untruth goes to hell, as does one who claims not to have done what he has in fact done. " There are several similar fire and brimestone punishments for anyone who violates the five precepts. Elsewhere in the same sutra he promises bad futures for bad actions.

These are the teachings of the Buddha, straight out of the Pali cannon. It would seem to me the Buddha meant karma to be an otherworldy justice system, no matter what we'd like to see it as today. Violate the ethical code I've described and your karma will lead you to eternal torture -- that's what I hear him saying.

no scientist has yet to disprove the existence of rebirth.

It is the Buddha who is asserting that rebirth exists. Since Buddha is making the claim, he has to support that claim. Other than taking it on faith, we have no way to verify what he has claimed. It's not a matter of disproving rebirth. It's a matter of proving it in the first place.

In many cases when I hear talk of rebirth and karma, I hear people making the assumption that rebirth and karma are true, and then looking for evidence to support this truth. In fact, to properly realize these as true, we should first look for evidence and then conclude from it that rebirth and karma do in fact exist. Nearly every writing on these topics that I've read are always framed with the suppostion that rebirth and karma are undeniable facts.

some people believe Buddhism without giving a damn to karma and rebirth

Without belief in these two tennets of Buddhism, I'm not sure what there is left to the religion. Without a belief in rebirth, you would have to assume that buddhahood would need to be attained in this lifetime. The last time I checked, there has only been one Buddha. So the chance of succeeding is dismally small. You would need endless lifetimes to reach the perfected Buddha state, according to what the Buddha and the commentaries teach us.

Without a belief in karma, how do one's meriitous deeds accumulate to lead one closer to enlightenment? Again, without a belief in these two tennets, you basically have Buddism become a form of self-help psychology.

Andy_d

Your answer makes fine sense. What we think and do today will obviously impact what we will think and do in the future. But again I stumble on the very literal punishment/reward system outlined in by the Buddha.

He has clearly stated, in many different sutras, that no matter how long it takes bad deeds are punished and good deeds are rewarded. Review my quote from the Dhammapada given above. Those are words allegedly from the Buddha himself. He is promising me hell for lying. I don't know how else to read that. Your concept of karma is a little toned down from what the Buddha taught about it.

Premjan

Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure how any of what you said can be known by any human being. What happens after death is a mystery to any living person.

when a person dies, their modes of thought and expression are still present among their "associates" and loved ones and so on. The mental attitudes of these people literally resurrect the behavior of the dead person in others, if not in a single person, then the piecemeal behaviors end up showing up in others as a self-fulfilling kind of thinking.

Why would I have to die for this to be true? If my personality alters the behaviors of others, why would that be only the case after I'm dead? I would think that this would be more possible if I were alive.

Furthermore, are you saying that nothing is reborn except for some "personality remnant" that influences my loved ones? This is not rebirth of the kind that Buddha taught. He fairly well specified that my karma will lead to the creation of another being in another realm of existence. But how do you prove both the Buddha's and your claims?

Thanks to everyone for putting up with me. I don't mean to be demeaning or confrontational. In fact, as far as what Buddhism advocates in terms of peace and compassion, I find no better spokesman than the Buddha. I just struggle with the heart of his teachings on karma, rebirth, and enlightenment. (Holy mackrel! Don't get me started on enlightenment!)

Thanks for your attention.

[premjan]

I think rebirth is just recycling of personality information. This is the reason why children are encouraged to perform the '
last rites' of their dead parents, to get rid of these personality remnants (often referred to as 'ghosts' by people with vivid imaginations).

enlightenment is just having the right perspective on the mind, the self and so on. the human brain is a pretty imperfect information processor and contains a lot of artifactual information (it doesn't really 'know' itself properly). this is the whole reason for religion, to refer to the wisdom of those who have better insight into their own minds.

[premjan]

well, how could the buddha know? he surmised based on introspection. he turned out to be correct about a lot of things, but I doubt he got everything 100% right, or there would only be one religion in the world today.

[premjan]

alternately, it could be that each individual personality is really like a separate program running on the distributed computer network known as the human race. when a person dies, only the hardware fails, and the software migrates transparently to the nearest available processor, causing either possession of an existing human or taking over a newborn's body.

[Answerer]

Ok, I will try to answer your doubts again, I might be wrong at some points though.

Originally posted by Autieri


I have regretted things done in the past. But this is not how I understand karma. In this instance, I would be reacting to a recollection of a past event. How is this bad karma? What if I am regretting not killings someone rather than just beating them up? That instance of regret cannot be bad karma at work.


Karma is more than just actions, it involved emotions, intentions and determination as well. Thats why I said that how Karma was complex in nature. But simply put, your instance of regret had probably to do with your clinging to the past, it could be either you believe that you had done the wrong actions or your past actions doesn't satisfy your negative emotion now. Actually, Karma is just cause and effect, so since no one like the feeling of regret or other negative emotions and physical suffering, I find it better to label them as 'bad karma'.


Also, while I agree that my actions will influence the wider world around me, I don't see that as karma. My actions would have to impact my surroundings, of course. But this is just natural. If karma is simply saying that what you think and do are likely to lead to a similar result (i.e. always thinking about stealing eventually leads me to steal), then I can accept that.

Karma affected more than individual alone, a person's actions can affected a wide range of people which is again depending on his own karma. In some cases, if some parents did something bad, their children, not them, will have to pay for it, in Chinese, we called these "parent's debt". On the hand, Karma is believed to be responsible for the evolution of the world and universe, not just sentinel beings. If you read any books about any Buddhism cosmic theory of the universe, you will tend to see how the force of karma is responsible for the removal of certain realms when the 'end' comes and transmigration of beings in the big process.



But it hardly seems the definition of karma given by the Buddha.In the Dhammapada, the Buddha has an entire chapter given over to hell as punishments for "transgressions." Chapter 22, verse 1 reads: "One who speaks untruth goes to hell, as does one who claims not to have done what he has in fact done. " There are several similar fire and brimestone punishments for anyone who violates the five precepts. Elsewhere in the same sutra he promises bad futures for bad actions.

The definition of karma that Buddha give is tend to be sufficient in explanation and appeal. Buddha has reasons for enforcing the idea of "hell and suffering", indeed his definition tend to be pessmistic, but this approach succeed in drawing millions of followers to His teaching at that time in India and during the classical times. However, in the modern times, rationalism bloom, such a approach is losing his favour. The rise of 'Pure land schools' in China and Japan and "Buddha realms" in Tibet is proof that people can no longer believe that "Bad Karma = hell or other undesirable realms", they believe that there are other means to avoid the undesirable effects of bad karma.

On the other hand, in some Buddhism books(Sorry I can't recalled the titles), Buddha( in other cases, monks) discourage the quest for the full understanding of Karma(because it distracts a person from practising Dharma), saying that only Awakening Ones can understand the detailed workings of Karma. Other than that, we are just a pack of blind people trying to picture the image of elephant that we have never seen before.


These are the teachings of the Buddha, straight out of the Pali cannon. It would seem to me the Buddha meant karma to be an otherworldy justice system, no matter what we'd like to see it as today. Violate the ethical code I've described and your karma will lead you to eternal torture -- that's what I hear him saying.

Hinayana or Thervada techings aren't the only teaching of Buddhism. Pure lands and Tibetian Buddhism will instantly tell you that your claims are not necessary the case. In Zen, there is even no such thing as Hell, Heaven or Karma!



It is the Buddha who is asserting that rebirth exists. Since Buddha is making the claim, he has to support that claim. Other than taking it on faith, we have no way to verify what he has claimed. It's not a matter of disproving rebirth. It's a matter of proving it in the first place.

Buddha never asserted his teachings must be the absolute truth. He teaches what He knew will benefit the people of that time. He believe that different people require different kinds of Dharma. Thats why He preached the Lotus sutras in which He claimed that there are 84000 ways or paths to True Awakening.

Besides, as I said before, certain accomplished monks do recall their past lives. I don't believe that they will be lying since they are sincere. And as far as I know, certain mediation tactics can reveal a person's past lives. Of coruse, I don't think you can prove it experimentally despite the fact that certain psychologists try to prove it.


In many cases when I hear talk of rebirth and karma, I hear people making the assumption that rebirth and karma are true, and then looking for evidence to support this truth. In fact, to properly realize these as true, we should first look for evidence and then conclude from it that rebirth and karma do in fact exist. Nearly every writing on these topics that I've read are always framed with the suppostion that rebirth and karma are undeniable facts.

I heard the same thing as well. But thats not the only thing I heard, some friends of mine, who don't believe in rebirth, trust Buddhism to be a great human philisophy of reaching inner peace, insight and happiness rather than a great religion.

You can even find people within this forum who don't believe in rebirth yet like Buddhism.


Without belief in these two tennets of Buddhism, I'm not sure what there is left to the religion. Without a belief in rebirth, you would have to assume that buddhahood would need to be attained in this lifetime. The last time I checked, there has only been one Buddha. So the chance of succeeding is dismally small. You would need endless lifetimes to reach the perfected Buddha state, according to what the Buddha and the commentaries teach us.

According to certain Buddhist texts, there are more than just one Buddha within a long range of time. Lotus sutras uncovers and admits the potential to be a Buddha hidden within everyone of us. Again, not everyone need endless lifetimes to reach Buddhahood, it just depends on individual again. Besides, you can choose to attain a 'lesser' goal first like Arahatship(or even 'lesser' goals like the non-returners or once returners) if you found Buddhahood to be nearly impossible.

Also, thats depend on a person's way of thinking, really. Since some individuals like the French revolutionaries can sacrifice their lives for some ideologies that brings equality, freedom and human rights to people. Why can't anyone believe in a helpful ideologies like Buddhism even if it doesn't have the idea of rebirth and Karma.

Furthermore, to a person who practices Zen a lot, even without the two tennets, he can still practices Zen. Believing in the two tennets is never a absolute requirement in practising or joining Buddhist community.



Without a belief in karma, how do one's meriitous deeds accumulate to lead one closer to enlightenment? Again, without a belief in these two tennets, you basically have Buddism become a form of self-help psychology.

Merits can't brought a person to enlightenment. Besides, in many buddhist tales, bodhisattvas help people not because they wanted to accumlate merits for themselves but out of compassion for the other fellow beings. To give without hoping for anything in return while seeing through the illusion in life is the key towards enlightenment, not through gaining merits or belief in karma and rebirth.

Moreover, Buddhism is basically a form of self-help psychology, no one can truly save or help you from your actions and decisions except yourself.

Hope I'm clear.

[premjan]

I think it may be technically possible to remember your own past lives. To understand this, remember that the karma that current resides within your own brain and body did not all originate within you. some of it is older than you are. it was transmitted into your mind/body through the chain of causes and effects, by your external influences and upbringing. I think there is probably some sort of means by which karma is pumping into to you and out of you into others. in this sense, the causal effects of the individual mind may live on after an individual's death. some of this may include explicit memories too, buried inside the unconscious mind. people under hypnosis sometimes remember forgotten aspects of their life, if karma is transparently trasmitted between individuals, then some of your individuality really came from someone else, and hence you may recall some aspects of their lives too. I think karma is no more unimaginable than resurrection. probably more believable if anything.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

thank you for the interesting disucssion thus far.

i should like to take this opportunity to explain something that is well understood by us Buddhist types but not so well by non-Buddhists.

the teachings of Guatama, the historical Buddha, are not dogmatic in that we must latch onto them. there is no creed to defend and no doctrine to uphold.

the Buddha provided his teachings to everyone as a raft to cross to the other shore. the Buddhas teachings can be likened to a group of reeds growing on the shore of the river. there are a lot of reeds, 84,000 of them. you can select the ones that you think will make the best raft and then you can build it to cross the river. when you arrive at the other shore, which reeds you selected to build your raft are unimportant.

you and i can choose entirely different groups of reeds to construct our individual rafts, however, when we arrive at the other shore, we realize our destination was the same and it doesn't really matter how we got here.

further... and this is echoed in the Diamond Sutra, none of the teachings of the Buddha will be applicable to us once we are on the other shore. the teachings are designed to inspire us to want to cross the river and then some instructions on how to build a raft to get there. that's it.

so.. you don't have to accept karma, rebirth, sunyanta, 12 Linked Chain of Causality, et al.. test the teachings for yourself and use the reeds that you believe will make the best raft and then use it.

[Autieri]

Thanks to all for the replies. I'm sorry I have not been around these boards for a while. I appreciate the efforts taken to put the lengthy comments together for me. I still struggle with Buddhism as a religion, and cannot accept karma, rebirth, and enlightenment. None of these notions make any sense to me, and cannot be demonstrated or proven in any way by anyone.

Vajradhara, I have long known about the raft analogy. But if there are 84,000 rafts to get the "other side" then why is Buddhism necessary at all? A number that large can fairly encompass just about any variation of religious belief or nonbelief. This basically tells me that Buddhism is everything -- in which case it becomes nothing at all.

What is the other shore? What is the point of all of Buddhism? Is it some method of being happy? This hardly seems the case from what I've studied of the religion. Buddhism is always talking about non attachment, letting go, nothingness, etc., etc. But I have yet to see some concrete explanation of what the point of all the meditation, concentration, and extinction of desires is supposed to get for me. The closest you ever get is some non-sensical answer about the nature of enlightenment. I have yet to hear a concrete definition of enlightment that makes any sense.

Oddly enough, no one is able to produce an example of an enlightened person who is "fully liberated." While some of these masters claim various degrees of enlightenment, none of them seem much different than me. Some only claim that they'll get a better rebirth than me. And I think by now everyone knows where I stand on rebirth. Lacking a practical example of the rewards for my efforts, I can only take enlightenment on faith. Anything taken on faith is taken because of the lack of proof or because the proof is counter to what you want to believe. I refuse to take such important matters on faith, and therefore have to refuse to accept enlightenment.

I think some aspects of Buddhism are worthwhile, particularly those teachings that direct you to pay attention to the here-and-now rather than the past or future. The general peace loving attitude is miles ahead of the "convert or die" attitudes of Western religion. But Buddhism in the final analysis for me does not work as a religious system. If you don't believe in karma, rebirth, and enlightenment (whatever that is defined as -- the definition seems to change from person to person), then Buddha becomes nothing more than an ancient self-help guru.

I don't have much time tonight, and I don't think I did a good enough job explaining myself. I hope my thoughts have clarified things for others, and given others something to think about. Thanks for everyone's time.

[premjan]

I think the purpose of buddhism is very plain, though it may occasionally be obscured: it is to let go of some unnecessary ego or "selfhood" and become a more adaptive and open and receptive individual. I.e., not to associate oneself with many of the incidentals of one's life, but to see oneself as an autonomous and reflecting and compassionate individual. that's mostly it.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Autieri
What is the point of all of Buddhism? Is it some method of being happy?

Yes, absolutely.

[premjan]

Originally posted by andy_d
Yes, absolutely.

why does happiness require the renunciation of some part of one's life? can't happiness be achieved with full immersion? isn't that the ideal state?

[andy_d]

Which part of your life were you thinking of? A quick look at the Five Precepts shows that the kinds of things to be avoided are violence, theft, deceit, intoxication and sexual misconduct. None of which do you much good. Why not try and avoid them?

Not quite sure what you mean by "full immersion", either? Do you mean by experiencing life fully? If so, that is the main object of following dharma, to live in the real world.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Autieri,

thank you for the reply.

why is Buddhism necessary? strictly speaking, it's not. when we talk about 84,000 reeds or teachings, we are indicating that people are of various capacities and capabilities and thus require things to be explained in a certain fashion and manner. Buddhism is one of these methods.

ah.. i see one of the problems you are having. you cannot have a "concrete" explanation of an experience that is beyond conception and if you insist on one, you will not be satisfied.

the "other shore" is a reference to the state of being that is different than this one. often it is a metaphor for Nirvana. remember that the Buddhist tradition uses a great deal of metaphor and symboloic language to express the points it's trying to make. there are many rivers in India.. to a person living in the time of the Buddha, the similie of making a temporary raft to cross a river is quite compelling. leaving the temp raft at the "other shore" so that one does not become entrapped by it is also a message that needs little in the way of context to impart its message.

for those of us that didn't grow up in that culture, these terms do require the context to be able to impart the fullness of their message.

going back to the discussion of experience for a moment... how would one describe the experience of eating an Orange to someone that has never even seen one before? are there any words that would actually convey the experience to the other person? in the Buddhist analysis of this question, the answer is "no". our words can only approximiate the experience, however, some people will cling to the words as the actual experience itself. this is one of the main reasons that you find people explaining a teaching in different manners... each person is trying to describe something that is, essentially, indescribable.

if you really have an interest in this subject, i would say that you are not likely to find a good answer on a discussion forum, despite the erdruite nautre of some of the posters. perhaps a text like "Glimpses of the Abidharma" or things of this nature would be a more valuable resource.