This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rebirth (Buddhism) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd like to add something to this page about the common western Buddhist's view of this as a metaphor, etc.
But before that... does anyone think it might be good to explain the POINT of reincarnation, rather than just the details and/or debate surrounding it? I mean, to begin the article with why it's an important teaching, regardless of whether it's believed or not?
-- Jel 16:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(Ksolway: 13 Nov 2006) This is the interpretation which views the language of reincarnation simply as a poetic or metaphorical means of talking about cause and effect, change, or the process of becoming.
It is not properly dealt with in this article.
"Traditional" (exoteric) reincarnation happens in a narrowly linear way. For example, it is claimed that the current Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama. Most Buddhists believe that they will have a future life *distinct* from other people. They do not believe they are reborn as their children, for example - even though cause and effect dictates it.
Cause and effect does not happen in such a narrowly linear way that is confined to a single line of individual consecutive lives.
Thus the teaching from the Bible: "One sows and another reaps", is correct, and echoes the following verse from Shantideva:
"It is a mistaken conception to think,
That I shall experience the suffering of my next life.
For it is another person who dies,
And another who will be reborn." - Shantideva ("Guide to the bodhisattva's way of life")
I propose adding an additional paragraph, or section, explaining this non-linear view that is based on the infinite workings of cause and effect.
Buddhadasa's stance that the 'dogma' of rebirth is not in line with the essecne of Buddhism may be worth mentioning here. See R.S. Bucknell & M. Stuart-Fox (1983), The ‘three knowledges’ of Buddhism: Implications of Buddhadasa's interpretation of rebirth. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Dalai Lama wrote a book titled The Four Noble Truths. It was published by Harper Collins in 1997 ISBN 0722535503. On page 51, he wrote,
The Dalai Lama goes on to explain that even pleasurable experiences ultimately bring suffering, all joyful experiences are tainted... as long as we are unenlightened. The premises of re-birth, re-death, samsara, dukkha and cyclic existence are central to Buddhism and other Indic theologies. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 02:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The theory of Anatta doctrine and the doctrine of transmigration ultimately end in mutual contradiction. (p.67)
W e can find the theory of transmigration in the Nikayas. But we reaUze that this theory is found not in the texts which teach about anatta, skandhas, and paticcasamuppada, but in the texts which have a mythical characteristic.
He concludes that the theory of transmigration was adapted by Early Buddhism for the purpose of fighting against the hedonism, pleasure-loving people, who ignore the idea of cause and effect.
Jennings holds a somewhat similar opinion to that of Watuji. His opinion is that the traditional idea of rebirth, which is completely incompatible with the doctrine of anatta was later accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism. He, for that reason, rejects all passages in the Nikayas referring to rebirth as later additions.
They both refuted the interpretation of the PS Model as the cycle of past, present and future life or re-becoming.
JJ: Indeed. You are touching upon what has been one of the central debates within Buddhism since ancient times, as well as one of those that has been a source of disagreements between the Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and some extinct Indic traditions from about the second half of the 1st-millennium BCE through about the 12th-century prior to the theo-political shock thereafter. One set of questions that all of them attempted to answer, rationalize and explain over 1,500 years: Is there rebirth? why (in the axiological sense, most came up with the karma theories, exception: Charvakas)? how (this is the crux of one of their disagreements)? what is reborn (another source of their disagreements)? when with timeline between death and rebirth (Jains came up with the most interesting elaborate answers)? where (leading to the samsara theories, Jains and Buddhists came up with the quite sophisticated models over time)? Buddhist answers to these questions tried to integrate in their anatta "no-self, no-soul" premise, which Jains and Hindus wholeheartedly disagreed with for they both rejected anatta and they both relied on the premise of atta/atman/jiva.
Nagasena, the 2nd-century BCE Buddhist scholar, explained how rebirth occurs using the "two candles" and "one lits up the other without ever touching" example. Those who claim rebirth is only found in mythical tales such as Jataka are mistaken or misinformed or creatively reinterpreting, per mainstream scholarly sources. Suttas do mention "repeated births and repeated deaths" and equivalent terms (punarmrtyu, punarbhava, etc). See the various interpretive translations, for example, here, here, here, here (pp 133-134, or from p 130 for context) etc.
Every few centuries, including some modern-era movements in Thailand and Japan, has revisited these questions... so obvious and forceful they are to those who reflect on the core Buddhist premises, then ponder what it implies/means. Many accept these Buddhist premises as given, internally consistent and satisfactory. Some of those Buddhists who revisit these questions bring back "self/soul" concepts, some deny rebirth or anatta or one of the central premises of Buddhism. One set of modernistic writers and interpreters of Buddhism suggest Hindus/Jains copied the Buddhists in "rebirth and ethical theories surrounding it, etc", while another set blames typically the former with statements such as "[rebirth theory was] accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism". The direct evidence, either way, is missing or very weak, but inferentially plausible and inferentially implausible! So, the lovely arguments go, round and round. Cyclic existence of ideas, questions, answers, understanding, misunderstanding,.... pretty much everything!
I do not want to preach to the quire here, but for RW-alikes and those newbie talk page stalkers reading this I note: in wikipedia, we must stick with what the mainstream peer-reviewed scholarship state, avoid fringe views, and include a neutral mention of the minority/other sides to the extent these views have been published in a manner that meet our RS guidelines. Sorry, JJ, this answer is longer than I would like. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 09:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
(ps) See this, this and this too, just the foreword of the first if you are short of time. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 09:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Many contemporary forms of Buddhism in the West—especially Zen and vipassana—seem to pay little attention to the doctrine of rebirth, emphasizing instead the importance of living more fully and authentically in the present. Teachers in these traditions often use the idea of rebirth metaphorically to describe the moment-to-moment process of "dying" and being "reborn." However appealing, psychologically astute, and didactically skillful such interpretations may be, they can give rise to the misleading impression that in traditional Zen or Theravadan cultures the doctrine of rebirth is likewise not taken literally. Not only is belief in rebirth firmly adhered to in all Buddhist countries, from Japan to Sri Lanka, but—especially in East Asia—it has become the very basis for the livelihood of the majority of monks and nuns. A typical Zen temple in Korea or Japan spends far more time offering services to assist departed parishioners on their way to a better rebirth than on instructing the living in zazen.
at least from the perspective of the Vibhaṅga, the term 'birth' can meaningfully be applied to the coming into being of mental states in the present moment as well as to rebirth in another life, without one of this modes of understanding contradicting the other.
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of merging Jāti (Buddhism) with Rebirth (Buddhism)? JimRenge ( talk) 17:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Who is rosalinda Pajares Megenio, base of her reincarnation life 124.105.49.191 ( talk) 12:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rebirth (Buddhism) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd like to add something to this page about the common western Buddhist's view of this as a metaphor, etc.
But before that... does anyone think it might be good to explain the POINT of reincarnation, rather than just the details and/or debate surrounding it? I mean, to begin the article with why it's an important teaching, regardless of whether it's believed or not?
-- Jel 16:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(Ksolway: 13 Nov 2006) This is the interpretation which views the language of reincarnation simply as a poetic or metaphorical means of talking about cause and effect, change, or the process of becoming.
It is not properly dealt with in this article.
"Traditional" (exoteric) reincarnation happens in a narrowly linear way. For example, it is claimed that the current Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama. Most Buddhists believe that they will have a future life *distinct* from other people. They do not believe they are reborn as their children, for example - even though cause and effect dictates it.
Cause and effect does not happen in such a narrowly linear way that is confined to a single line of individual consecutive lives.
Thus the teaching from the Bible: "One sows and another reaps", is correct, and echoes the following verse from Shantideva:
"It is a mistaken conception to think,
That I shall experience the suffering of my next life.
For it is another person who dies,
And another who will be reborn." - Shantideva ("Guide to the bodhisattva's way of life")
I propose adding an additional paragraph, or section, explaining this non-linear view that is based on the infinite workings of cause and effect.
Buddhadasa's stance that the 'dogma' of rebirth is not in line with the essecne of Buddhism may be worth mentioning here. See R.S. Bucknell & M. Stuart-Fox (1983), The ‘three knowledges’ of Buddhism: Implications of Buddhadasa's interpretation of rebirth. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Dalai Lama wrote a book titled The Four Noble Truths. It was published by Harper Collins in 1997 ISBN 0722535503. On page 51, he wrote,
The Dalai Lama goes on to explain that even pleasurable experiences ultimately bring suffering, all joyful experiences are tainted... as long as we are unenlightened. The premises of re-birth, re-death, samsara, dukkha and cyclic existence are central to Buddhism and other Indic theologies. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 02:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The theory of Anatta doctrine and the doctrine of transmigration ultimately end in mutual contradiction. (p.67)
W e can find the theory of transmigration in the Nikayas. But we reaUze that this theory is found not in the texts which teach about anatta, skandhas, and paticcasamuppada, but in the texts which have a mythical characteristic.
He concludes that the theory of transmigration was adapted by Early Buddhism for the purpose of fighting against the hedonism, pleasure-loving people, who ignore the idea of cause and effect.
Jennings holds a somewhat similar opinion to that of Watuji. His opinion is that the traditional idea of rebirth, which is completely incompatible with the doctrine of anatta was later accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism. He, for that reason, rejects all passages in the Nikayas referring to rebirth as later additions.
They both refuted the interpretation of the PS Model as the cycle of past, present and future life or re-becoming.
JJ: Indeed. You are touching upon what has been one of the central debates within Buddhism since ancient times, as well as one of those that has been a source of disagreements between the Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and some extinct Indic traditions from about the second half of the 1st-millennium BCE through about the 12th-century prior to the theo-political shock thereafter. One set of questions that all of them attempted to answer, rationalize and explain over 1,500 years: Is there rebirth? why (in the axiological sense, most came up with the karma theories, exception: Charvakas)? how (this is the crux of one of their disagreements)? what is reborn (another source of their disagreements)? when with timeline between death and rebirth (Jains came up with the most interesting elaborate answers)? where (leading to the samsara theories, Jains and Buddhists came up with the quite sophisticated models over time)? Buddhist answers to these questions tried to integrate in their anatta "no-self, no-soul" premise, which Jains and Hindus wholeheartedly disagreed with for they both rejected anatta and they both relied on the premise of atta/atman/jiva.
Nagasena, the 2nd-century BCE Buddhist scholar, explained how rebirth occurs using the "two candles" and "one lits up the other without ever touching" example. Those who claim rebirth is only found in mythical tales such as Jataka are mistaken or misinformed or creatively reinterpreting, per mainstream scholarly sources. Suttas do mention "repeated births and repeated deaths" and equivalent terms (punarmrtyu, punarbhava, etc). See the various interpretive translations, for example, here, here, here, here (pp 133-134, or from p 130 for context) etc.
Every few centuries, including some modern-era movements in Thailand and Japan, has revisited these questions... so obvious and forceful they are to those who reflect on the core Buddhist premises, then ponder what it implies/means. Many accept these Buddhist premises as given, internally consistent and satisfactory. Some of those Buddhists who revisit these questions bring back "self/soul" concepts, some deny rebirth or anatta or one of the central premises of Buddhism. One set of modernistic writers and interpreters of Buddhism suggest Hindus/Jains copied the Buddhists in "rebirth and ethical theories surrounding it, etc", while another set blames typically the former with statements such as "[rebirth theory was] accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism". The direct evidence, either way, is missing or very weak, but inferentially plausible and inferentially implausible! So, the lovely arguments go, round and round. Cyclic existence of ideas, questions, answers, understanding, misunderstanding,.... pretty much everything!
I do not want to preach to the quire here, but for RW-alikes and those newbie talk page stalkers reading this I note: in wikipedia, we must stick with what the mainstream peer-reviewed scholarship state, avoid fringe views, and include a neutral mention of the minority/other sides to the extent these views have been published in a manner that meet our RS guidelines. Sorry, JJ, this answer is longer than I would like. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 09:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
(ps) See this, this and this too, just the foreword of the first if you are short of time. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 09:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Many contemporary forms of Buddhism in the West—especially Zen and vipassana—seem to pay little attention to the doctrine of rebirth, emphasizing instead the importance of living more fully and authentically in the present. Teachers in these traditions often use the idea of rebirth metaphorically to describe the moment-to-moment process of "dying" and being "reborn." However appealing, psychologically astute, and didactically skillful such interpretations may be, they can give rise to the misleading impression that in traditional Zen or Theravadan cultures the doctrine of rebirth is likewise not taken literally. Not only is belief in rebirth firmly adhered to in all Buddhist countries, from Japan to Sri Lanka, but—especially in East Asia—it has become the very basis for the livelihood of the majority of monks and nuns. A typical Zen temple in Korea or Japan spends far more time offering services to assist departed parishioners on their way to a better rebirth than on instructing the living in zazen.
at least from the perspective of the Vibhaṅga, the term 'birth' can meaningfully be applied to the coming into being of mental states in the present moment as well as to rebirth in another life, without one of this modes of understanding contradicting the other.
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of merging Jāti (Buddhism) with Rebirth (Buddhism)? JimRenge ( talk) 17:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Who is rosalinda Pajares Megenio, base of her reincarnation life 124.105.49.191 ( talk) 12:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)