I would say I believe in rebirth, but it's not as simple as a personal consciousness being reborn in another body (which is the typical non-Buddhist assumption, I guess) because there is no such thing as this "personal consciousness". That's the simplest way I can put it. I love the fact that there are people debating and talking about these things nowadays. And I love you Brad!
I can certainly say that if thought Zen was trying to encourage good through guilt, or fear, or threat of an unpleasant future, I would not have become interested in it.
And yet most indigenous Buddhists not only believe in rebirth but work to build up "merit" through donations, prayer wheels, and offerings to monks. I'm with Batchelor on this one but you can't deny that for most of the Buddhist world the concept is taken literally. From Tibet's Rainbow body to the Chan storehouse consciousness to Nichiren lambasting a poor diseased woman for having sinned in a past life and thus deserving of their condition.
Love the videos! Love theses topics. One of the many things i like about the ZEN tradition. Even in the old texts “kalama” Buddha teaches we can believe a whole lot of things but we should believe what we know to be proven to work in regards to our suffering. Buddha may have believed in reincarnation but he stated eliminating greed hatred an ignorance was his main goal of his teachings.
Is Clarity dependant on Belief? ('nuff said?) - Kill the Buddha, embrace mystery ! One thing I took away from the Batchelor debate was the idea that "emptiness is the letting go of views" - Nirvana is freedom from concepts; the cycle of life and death collapses everytime fear dies.
Douglas MacRae-Smith Wow. Yes. This hits home with me as I have a really hard time accepting doctrine, and even Zen doctrine. It`s like that simile about the raft or boat that you use to cross the river. Once you`ve crossed you leave the raft behind.
@@marcusgronwall1340 I always thought that the great thing about zen was that we couldn't grasp what was being said 🤪 at least in that way we are not burdened down by dogma - what is your most unacceptable zen doctrine? Of course, sometimes we can't accept stuff because we are holding on so hard to its antithesis
Not that it's particularly relevant to this video, but Gil Fronsdal is a great teacher and a lovely human being, and it's well worth checking out more of his stuff.
I've been on retreat at Gaia House. Missed the event, that's a shame. I think everything is popping into and out of existence all the time, so no problem with reincarnation here :)
The late philosopher Derek Parfit defended the notion of psychological continuity. His thought experiments (human mitosis, teleportation, cloning, etc.) were designed to undermine the idea that the continuity of personal identity doesn't matter but whether something is psychologically (memories, ideas, thought patterns, etc.) continuous with who one is.
In the Kalama Sutra, after the famous part, the Buddha describes the Four Solaces. He basically lays out his version of Pascal's Wager in relation to his teachings. The stated goal of the path is to eliminate greed, hate, and delusion in this life...and, as a result, whatever happens afterwards takes care of itself. He explicitly entertains 1) Heaven/Hell, 2) Reincarnation, or 3) Nothing. This is inline with the whole "leaves versus the forest" analogy in the Simpasa Sutra where Buddha does a not-so-subtle flex and says, paraphrasing, "I know a lot through direct knowledge but I'm only teaching you the relevant things"...what things are relevant? Those the lead to the elimination of hate, greed, and delusion. Of course, this didn't stop them from creating the Abhidharma later. Oy. BTW, there's a difference between what the Buddha said about the world and what the Buddha said about his own teachings. It was 400s BCE after all....Iron Age in India. He wasn't really omniscient ;). As for authenticity, there's an amazing paper by Bhikku Sujato & Bhikku Brahmali that documents all the evidence (158 pages) supporting the conclusion that the early texts are authentic. I tend to agree with Batchelor WRT reincarnation. I think that the reincarnation was inserted back into Buddhism for either because it was just an implacable part of the Weltanschauung or competitive reasons; the later reason explaining why tantra was added centuries later. Your religion needs followers...so you adapt. This is a good comparison. Tantra is not in the Pali Canon but clearly many Tibetan Buddhists have used it to practice the path, retcons notwithstanding. Who knows, maybe it was one of the 84,000 ("lots and lots") methods...but it's of a different order than reincarnation, which he specifically addresses as being not relevant (but not true or false). Do you have less greed, hate, and delusion than last year? You're probably doing just fine. If not, get the f*ck off UA-cam and sit. :O ;)
The debate between Batchelor and Ven. Brahmali Brad references can be found under this title. "Stephen Batchelor and Ven Brahmali debate in Melbourne 2014" I can't link it directly but Brahmali elaborates on two important points. 1. Most Buddhists do NOT study the founder's teachings directly, preferring to study commentaries and later writings falsely attributed to the founder. 2. Rebirth is integral and fundamental to the founder's teaching, not a cultural accretion from Indian society or something taken on faith.
I still don't get your point. I honestly don't. Is your point that Buddha said it, you believe it, and that settles it? Why do you trust the authority of ancient texts that have probably been altered over time? How do you know that's what the Buddha even said? There are texts older than the Pali Canon in which he doesn't talk about reincarnation. What about those? Personally, I don't trust ANY old texts as authoritative about anything.
@@HardcoreZen so then...why call oneself a buddhist? to be a buddhist is to follow the buddhist teachings, which as far as I know, are only made available to us in the form of old texts. thats literally the entire point.
@@HardcoreZen There are no Buddhist texts older than 29 BCE...the time of the fourth Buddhist council. So there is no academic certainty they were written by or dictated by the founder. That's not the issue here. Whether rebirth is a reality or not is also not the issue. The issue is what defines the word Buddhism in its earliest recorded form. And my point is that rebirth is a core principle that defines Buddhism from those earliest recordings. In fact, there is no era of Buddhist history when rebirth was not a core principle. I dont care if Batchelor denies rebirth. I really dont and I wish him well. The problem is that he misrepresents what the word Buddhism means in public...by writing books. Its a simple matter of intellectual honesty. Batchelor is perfectly justified in writing books about his quest for insight through meditation. He has the skills and talent for it just as you do. Some people might find it entertaining. Just dont call it Buddhism.
@@Teller3448 well, what does the word "Buddhism" mean? Two standard translations are: a) awakening, and b) enlightening. They both indicate, albeit with some nuances in meaning (--> fields of association), the shining up (--> Zen-lore symbolism of the "Morning Star") of an decisive insight into "suchness" or "true reality", and so forth. The historic Gautama Siddharta most likely was an experienced Yogi, as well as a Noble Man (from birth) quite versed in the religio-philosophical world-views in the India of his time. According to standard lore, he went well along with many supposedly universal psycho-cosmological concepts, circulating then, including that one of re-birth, respectively of re-incarnation---which implies, as a rule, a "soul", a "core self", you name it..., which "becomes flesh" (in-carn-ation), and thereupon unfolds its "innate, core nature", and so forth. However, the implied decisive insight into "what holds the world at core together" (W. Goethe, "Faust"), does not necessarily imply exactly the standard concepts of Karma (i.e., the "endless finite" world-knot, the Daoist Big Loom, etc.) or Rebirth (i.e., souls wandering from body to body, etc.). This about is, what S. Batchelor---with some fairly well founded arguments, in my view---seems to point out. In fact, he forwards a quite complex and sophisticated argument, which invites people to further research---which, again, implies that he dwells more in the "asking, searching modus" than in the "dogmatic" one, reminding one of Sokrates´ heuristic motto of "Scio nescio!". One can even find some precedences in some concepts of Master Dôgen, like a) that one of a "total dynamism", and b) that semi-voluntaristic one of "utomost excertion", as can be found, e.g., in the essay "Uji" (Being-Time). They also already seem to provide some "zen-ish" justification for more "unorthodox" interpretations of Buddha`s core-concepts (which are transmitted to us via the traditions of the "old schools", on the one side, as well as they can be inferred, respectively deduced, via comparative cultural-anthropological studies, and so forth, on the other side). In such way, the hermeneutic wheel keeps turning.
Knowing annata, what is it that could be reborn? Yoka Daishi 665-713: 'A true follower of the Way speaks with certainty. You who lack will and self-discipline, be inquiring! Going straight to the root is the hallmark of the Buddha; Picking up leaves and collecting branches is no use at all. '
Could the answer to the question of rebirth not be similar to Vasubandhu's notion of 'selfless' karma? "the past action inaugurates a causal series, which eventuates in the result at a later time via a number of intermediate steps. When I act now, it does not alter some eternal soul, but it does alter the future of my aggregates by sparking a causal series." (stanford) in other words, 'I' am not reborn, however there is a complex rebirth of the skhandas or dharmas
Cheers, Brad. The best explanation of rebirth and Karma I've ever read is written in Buddhism from Within. Have you read it? I think reincarnation is a highly misunderstood aspect of buddhism. People seem to believe that they will be reborn and come back as another person. But if buddhism doesn't accept the existence of a separate self, which it doesn't, then who is being reborn and coming back? That just doesn't add up. Maybe something carries on, but practice shows us that it can't be 'us' or 'me', right?
The issue isn’t psychological, ie, whether it’s possible for somebody to claim to be a Buddhist and not believe in rebirth. The issue is logical- can somebody deny rebirth while still coherently actually being a Buddhist, ie, have those core set of beliefs uniquely expanded by the Buddha. And those core beliefs revolve around dukkha and escape from the suffering of rebirth. The entire house of Buddhist cards falls if there is no rebirth. Second, there’s an issue of credibility with everything else the Buddha said, because of the belief in rebirth is false, then hard to believe anything else he said that isn’t independently verifiable or reasonable. Rebirth is integral to Buddhism. As sin is integral to Christianity. It makes no sense why Jesus died on the cross if there’s no such thing as sin. Logic and contradiction matter. That’s why theologians and monks and scholars think carefully about various core issues- to avoid the absurdity of contradiction. The central intellectual problem with Buddhism is that rebirth makes no sense in light of what we know about the brain and human evolution. Makes no sense whatsoever.
The self is constantly dying and born. As a constant identity time is illusory, space is illusory by dividing us into different people. There is only IT.
The world of Buddhism forms a huge "stream-system" and you can find nearly any possible standpoint, if you only search long enough, so not only my impression. One thing, however, seems very obvious: "incarnation", "re-incarnation", "birth-death", you name it ..., have been playing an important, if not pivotal role in the teachings from the beginnings, starting with the (half-)legendary "F i r s t S e r m on" of Gautama Siddharta, in which he explains the gist of his experience of "awakening-enlightenment-liberation" under the Bodhi-tree---and one of the three (?) cardinal "marks" presented is: the Enlightened One can now (!) clearly remember all past lives and, moreover, gain insights in their basic "conditions of possibility" (I. Kant). Later, in addition, the system of the 12 Nidanas was conceptualized/formalized by some scholars/schools in the following way: One complete cycle of this twelve-fold chain---undulating from "lethe" to "aletheia" and from "aletheia" to "lethe" (as the old Greek might have said, which also dived deep into this "matter")---spans three lifetimes. These visions/concepts/models are part of the standard lore or "little catechism", so to speak. Are they a sine-qua-non? I personally would not dare to definitively decide on this question. Still more basic, however, seems to be the (imagery of) the "big divide" between Samsâra and Nirwâna, which somehow allows to sidestep the problem of "re-incarnation"---which, again, forms one aspect of the more encompassing (Gestalt-)concept of "time-being" or "vital space-time", or of "pan ta rei" (Heraklit), etc. This general frame/horizon also allows for "alternate models" beyond the classic plain realism of the "eternal return of always the same"---to borrow here a congenial expression from Friedrich Nietzsche. In his "essays" on existence-philosophy, Nietzsche at one point generalized certain models/rules/regularities of gasses/fluids in physics presented first by Daniel Bernoulli---main work: "Hydrodynamica sive de viribus et motibus fluidorum commentarii" (publ. 1738), a study on circular aspects of aggregate states in a closed system, and so forth---and transferred them into the realm of human metaphysical world-views.
To me, rebirth is the foundational reason for the Busdhist path at all. Yes being too occupied by it is wrong thinking, but that doesn't negate the concept. I'm always astonished that Western practitioners have to fo to such lengths as Steven to deny it.
I believe in Open Individualism. "Open individualism is the view in the philosophy of self, according to which there exists only one numerically identical subject, who is everyone at all times." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism Feels right to me, but in the end, I don't know. (edit: Empty Individualism is kind of depressing lol)
I enjoy the conversation about rebirth and ethics... you will be reborn at least into the next moment (if you dont die!). So you might as well not steal that bike. Having stolen the bike would probably mean someone will steal your bike eventually. And what if you need that bike to get to the zen sit. If you had enough drive i guess you could walk, but biking is faster. If youve emptied all your karma and are a fully realized arhat you might not want to go to zen, but on the off chance you are not you might need a bit of good karma so you can keep up your buddhist practice.
I'm a Chan Buddhist and most of my experience from practice has been around Chinese and I haven't came across any questions or disputes around re-birth as of yet maybe it's a cultural debate? I'm not sure but the few times I've heard it mentioned in Mandarin or English it hasn't seemed a question.
Sinitic religio-philosophic systems are full of circulatory models, beginning with pre-classic Yìjing-learning, then there we have especially the (semi-legendary) classic Daoist Master Zhuang Zhou, who talks a lot about natural cycles, metamorphosis, and the ever pulsating Big Way (道), and so on. Then, in the so called Kôan-literature (which developed mainly out of biographical texts), relevant concepts are also all around the place, like "dependant mutual arising" (缘起), "common causes-effects" (共缘), stretching across multiple own and other existences, and anedoctes about foxes and other "wandering existents", some quite common, some quite exotic, and so forth. And in "popular religion", the circle-paradigm (including life-circles of "sentient beings") was and is even more widespread; but it often leads to rather "betwixed" "narratives" (folk-tales and folk-ways, etc.), often spun around the ancestor-cult(s), but also other pupular cults/creed, stretching across different regions/ethnicities. Taking all this in regard, I wonder how you never noticed this cultural (sub)text, which, I would argue, is plainly evident inside the Sinitic World. Maybe, it is because practicioners (修行者) of Chán/Sôn/Zen lastly aspire at radical "transcendence" (超越) and, on that account, the problem/affair/question of re-birth is side-passed, or even hidden behind a "linguistic taboo" (Bernard Faure)? That this is the case, can be inferred---if we take them as a strong indicator---from relevant debates between masters of the Chán-School, on the one side, and masters of the Pure-Land School, on the other side. What makes rebirth-models/concepts/scenarios on a higher degree interesting in the context of Buddhism, is, i.m.o., the fact that the whole soteriology ("way of healing") derives much of its plausibilty from them. Example given: The big narrative of the endless wandering in Samsara, unfolded as a veritable "horror-scenario", forms one, if not "the" logic basis for the unfolding of the big narrative of awakening-enlightenment-liberation: Nirwana "technically" complements Samsara in a congenial way. Examples from Zen-modernism, however, show that alternative narratives can also be unfolded with higher plausibility... and, again, debates ensue around questions/affairs/problems regarding the "right way", as so often before in the history of (Zen-)Buddhism. What you report is really interesting to hear, might be good stuff for later discussions.
Reincarnation is necessary, we're all connected to the past, physically and psychologically, and the beings of the past love us and want the best for us, because we live from them, we are them!!! My body disintigrates!!! Where will it go!!?? ! lol
Yeah, I feel like the weird view of time that Dogen talks about, which I feel I agree with, makes reincarnation into a different concept. What does it mean for a "future" life to be after "this" one if the future and the past are all expressions of the one moment?
This is a (serious) play with the classic conundrum of "all in one, one in all", and it falls under the "jurisdiction" of the "mechanics of logic" (--> and AI demonstrates that they are more than pure psychology) of the "infinite regress". What had Master Dôgen "really" (--> defínition) in "mind" (--> definition)? He won`t and/or can`t tell---or, at least, not "in orderly fashion"---, but keeps on circling---and does just so, supposedly, in order to "point to the moon", or something like that (he obviously pursued certain concrete intentions with his speeches/writings, which can at least partly be decodified...). One standard explanation would be Tiantái-holism (then mainly represented by the "establishment" on Mount Hiei), as expressed in programmatic catchphrases, like: "Three thousand worlds [are inherent] in one moment [and vice versa]!" But, then again, Dôgen brands just such "imagery" in the Gakudô-yôjin-shû ("Exhortations to study the Way") as "heretic". In this way, Dôgen Kigen`s words appear---in synopsis and according to standard criteria of logic in the wider sense (i.e., logic as basic universal grammar of human language, "mirroring" the universe as such)---as highly self-contradictory. And now, taking the meta-perspective, one may ask: Is this an expression of his own variant of de(con)structionism---and does it really work well? And so on, and so forth... The hermeneutical circle keeps turning, which, again, seems to be a quite natural thing for the species of Homo sapiens, the "knowingly knowing human being"...
The belief that reincarnation reinforces/enforces ethical behavior is weak tea. I think reincarnation is an interesting thing to talk about and play around with. The more I play around with this idea I start to think that when we are reclaimed to the cosmos (death) - our bodies transition into a new phase of existence that feeds other things (decomposition, etc.) However, the rebirth of our consciousness has yet to be competently experienced and recorded. I’ll end there. My cats need attention.
First of all Buddhism has been encroached by Hindu ideas and beliefs. Past life and rebirth is the one such idea. According to Buddhism life is ephemeral and all forms and phenomenon are due to coming together of it’s constituent cause and conditions. So our constituent conditions including body and mind will eventually disintegrate and disperse. So there is no eternal immortal soul or inner self that is subject to birth or death or afterlife. So the mind that we develop during course of our life will eventually disintegrate and disperse with the body. So there is no inner self that is to be reborn or reincarnated. This is the only opportunity to live and experience this life fully for which you need to grow and mature, develop and detach. For that buddha gave the way of 3 surrenders, 4 noble truths, 5 moral characters, and 8 rules of living. Buddha will never lie just to entice or scare people with the bait of next life. Buddha never gave false consolations. Idea of past and next birth in Buddhism is introduced by the Vedic Hindus to contaminate Buddhism. Buddha has said to believe in your own experience, knowledge and wisdom. Be your own light is what is buddha told his disciples. Do don’t believe something unless you have known it yourself.
Thank you for your comment, I just started to learn about Buddhism today and I just read we shouldn't believe in heaven or anything that fulfills our desires but then I hear there is a reincarnation path after fulfilling certain requirements, it didn't make sense, thanks to you I'll just ignore that aspect because I think it is our selfishness trying to get a reward of afterlife to fulfill our desires, and that doesn't seem a true .
I wonder if reincarnation is like karma, where you don't point it at other people. Some people need it. I'm not one of those people but I get why. Maybe later I'll need it to make sense of the world, but even then, I hope I don't use that to question other people's "Buddhistness"
There are proofs for reincarnation and law of karma on internet and in books. Basis of Budhism is reincarnation and law of karma . The necessity of Budhism is impermanence sufferings and concept of no soul . Budhism guides us to stay in human world and heavens until final stage is attained 🙏🙏🙏
@@HardcoreZen In other words... Karma (and mental afflictions) is what leads to the perpetual cycling of rebirth in samsara. If there is no such thing as rebirth... why care about the cause and effect of karma? Sorry... I didn’t state that very well first time.
Yes, Karma and reincarnation are tightly connected. So why bother trying to be a good person if this life is the only one we get? So we are just like Christians and Muslims then? We act good out of fear of "punishments" if we don`t? Not good enough for me. We act good out of empathy, right?
@@marcusgronwall1340 Right on, brother. I would add that we are practicing to be clear in the here and now so as to act with powerful and transformational compassionate action for the sake of all beings. And we vow to do this in whatever moment we are in, regardless of whether reincarnation is from life to life or merely a rebirth and death from one moment to the next. I'll also say that karma is just karma, there is no inherently good or bad karma. What you do with it is what matters most.
If I wanted guilt to be my motivation for kindness, Id stick with the Abraham's 😂 The thing with Buddhism and Taoism that makes it so beautiful to me is that 1000 practitioners could believe 1000 different things, and that its okay, within those systems of belief. Whereas, say protestants and catholics may believe the same core beliefs, but are so dogmatic that their differences create such a divide for them.
actually, buddha may have been right with his assertion that people developed sexual organs after learning to farm rice. see, if you just view it in isolation, it clearly makes no sense. allow me to sprinkle some theosopical doctrine into the mix: according to it, there are 7 "root-races" for humanity, we are currently the 5th I think, the previous ones were the atlantean and prior to that the lemurians. these were "humans" nothing like us, they didnt even inhabit this place in the 3d realm, but some other parallel dimension.. the "fall" of humankind from that other dimension into the current one in the transition period was roughly when agriculture developed. there you go. buddha clearly simplified it a lot. but if thats true, then it makes sense... and judging by what other traditions teach, it may be... once that transition happened, the sexual organs formed and by having sex, we lost our original state! we know from ancient texts that lemurian or atlantean (dont quite know which, i mix them up) had sex completely differently, its commonly known as "sex magick" or tantra these days but when they united, there didn't occur any loss of sexual energy (expressed in its grosser form [in the physical plane] as sexual fluids and in the subtle form, as prana/chi/energy etc. vigor or virja, the vedic sanskrit text calls it I think) the biblical narrative talks about Adam & Eve "eating" from the "forbidden tree placed at the midst of the garden" and proverbs 30:20 states that a "whore eats and wipes her mouth and says she has done no wickedness". so its clear that the "fall" is due to sex. the forbidden tree represents the sexual organs, the "garden" is the human body, "eating" is having sex... you can find this also in hinduism (allthough, there its not the "fall"). its all linked to the kundalini energy (called Holy Spirit in Christendom)... even in buddhism, you find about its energetic movements, which is called "piti" there.. this is why brahmacharya (celibacy) is a big thing. even in buddhism, the real connotation behind "desire" that needs to be get rid of, is sexual. its sexual desire. you need to be celibate and retain your sexual fluids, the "holy grail".. i digress. these things are all linked together...
@@osip7315 thats ignorance.. the theosophical texts which refer to these old texts, make mention of it. its not something i concocted myself. go read "the secret doctrine" from Helena Blavatsky. and she herself got it from much older manuscripts... i think traces of it can even be found in the sumerian tablets - dont quote me on that though! edit: she makes mention of those "root races" with Manu being the progenitor of our root race. don't confuse "root race" with races as we know it. a root race has sub races, which is more likely what we understand as "race". all of humanity, right now, is of root race #5, having multiple sub-races within that root-race, like whites, blacks, asian, indian, etc. etc. again, this is not my opinion, this is theosopical thought!
I would say I believe in rebirth, but it's not as simple as a personal consciousness being reborn in another body (which is the typical non-Buddhist assumption, I guess) because there is no such thing as this "personal consciousness". That's the simplest way I can put it.
I love the fact that there are people debating and talking about these things nowadays. And I love you Brad!
I can certainly say that if thought Zen was trying to encourage good through guilt, or fear, or threat of an unpleasant future, I would not have become interested in it.
And yet most indigenous Buddhists not only believe in rebirth but work to build up "merit" through donations, prayer wheels, and offerings to monks. I'm with Batchelor on this one but you can't deny that for most of the Buddhist world the concept is taken literally. From Tibet's Rainbow body to the Chan storehouse consciousness to Nichiren lambasting a poor diseased woman for having sinned in a past life and thus deserving of their condition.
Love the videos! Love theses topics. One of the many things i like about the ZEN tradition.
Even in the old texts “kalama” Buddha teaches we can believe a whole lot of things but we should believe what we know to be proven to work in regards to our suffering.
Buddha may have believed in reincarnation but he stated eliminating greed hatred an ignorance was his main goal of his teachings.
Is Clarity dependant on Belief? ('nuff said?) - Kill the Buddha, embrace mystery ! One thing I took away from the Batchelor debate was the idea that "emptiness is the letting go of views" - Nirvana is freedom from concepts; the cycle of life and death collapses everytime fear dies.
Douglas MacRae-Smith Wow. Yes. This hits home with me as I have a really hard time accepting doctrine, and even Zen doctrine. It`s like that simile about the raft or boat that you use to cross the river. Once you`ve crossed you leave the raft behind.
@@marcusgronwall1340 I always thought that the great thing about zen was that we couldn't grasp what was being said 🤪 at least in that way we are not burdened down by dogma - what is your most unacceptable zen doctrine? Of course, sometimes we can't accept stuff because we are holding on so hard to its antithesis
Not that it's particularly relevant to this video, but Gil Fronsdal is a great teacher and a lovely human being, and it's well worth checking out more of his stuff.
I've been on retreat at Gaia House. Missed the event, that's a shame.
I think everything is popping into and out of existence all the time, so no problem with reincarnation here :)
isn't reincarnation the opposite, "continuous existence" ?
The late philosopher Derek Parfit defended the notion of psychological continuity. His thought experiments (human mitosis, teleportation, cloning, etc.) were designed to undermine the idea that the continuity of personal identity doesn't matter but whether something is psychologically (memories, ideas, thought patterns, etc.) continuous with who one is.
In the Kalama Sutra, after the famous part, the Buddha describes the Four Solaces. He basically lays out his version of Pascal's Wager in relation to his teachings. The stated goal of the path is to eliminate greed, hate, and delusion in this life...and, as a result, whatever happens afterwards takes care of itself. He explicitly entertains 1) Heaven/Hell, 2) Reincarnation, or 3) Nothing. This is inline with the whole "leaves versus the forest" analogy in the Simpasa Sutra where Buddha does a not-so-subtle flex and says, paraphrasing, "I know a lot through direct knowledge but I'm only teaching you the relevant things"...what things are relevant? Those the lead to the elimination of hate, greed, and delusion. Of course, this didn't stop them from creating the Abhidharma later. Oy. BTW, there's a difference between what the Buddha said about the world and what the Buddha said about his own teachings. It was 400s BCE after all....Iron Age in India. He wasn't really omniscient ;). As for authenticity, there's an amazing paper by Bhikku Sujato & Bhikku Brahmali that documents all the evidence (158 pages) supporting the conclusion that the early texts are authentic. I tend to agree with Batchelor WRT reincarnation. I think that the reincarnation was inserted back into Buddhism for either because it was just an implacable part of the Weltanschauung or competitive reasons; the later reason explaining why tantra was added centuries later. Your religion needs followers...so you adapt. This is a good comparison. Tantra is not in the Pali Canon but clearly many Tibetan Buddhists have used it to practice the path, retcons notwithstanding. Who knows, maybe it was one of the 84,000 ("lots and lots") methods...but it's of a different order than reincarnation, which he specifically addresses as being not relevant (but not true or false). Do you have less greed, hate, and delusion than last year? You're probably doing just fine. If not, get the f*ck off UA-cam and sit. :O ;)
The debate between Batchelor and Ven. Brahmali Brad references can be found under this title.
"Stephen Batchelor and Ven Brahmali debate in Melbourne 2014"
I can't link it directly but Brahmali elaborates on two important points.
1. Most Buddhists do NOT study the founder's teachings directly, preferring to study commentaries and later writings falsely attributed to the founder.
2. Rebirth is integral and fundamental to the founder's teaching, not a cultural accretion from Indian society or something taken on faith.
I still don't get your point. I honestly don't. Is your point that Buddha said it, you believe it, and that settles it? Why do you trust the authority of ancient texts that have probably been altered over time? How do you know that's what the Buddha even said? There are texts older than the Pali Canon in which he doesn't talk about reincarnation. What about those?
Personally, I don't trust ANY old texts as authoritative about anything.
@@HardcoreZen so then...why call oneself a buddhist? to be a buddhist is to follow the buddhist teachings, which as far as I know, are only made available to us in the form of old texts. thats literally the entire point.
@@HardcoreZen There are no Buddhist texts older than 29 BCE...the time of the fourth Buddhist council. So there is no academic certainty they were written by or dictated by the founder. That's not the issue here. Whether rebirth is a reality or not is also not the issue.
The issue is what defines the word Buddhism in its earliest recorded form. And my point is that rebirth is a core principle that defines Buddhism from those earliest recordings. In fact, there is no era of Buddhist history when rebirth was not a core principle. I dont care if Batchelor denies rebirth. I really dont and I wish him well. The problem is that he misrepresents what the word Buddhism means in public...by writing books. Its a simple matter of intellectual honesty.
Batchelor is perfectly justified in writing books about his quest for insight through meditation. He has the skills and talent for it just as you do. Some people might find it entertaining. Just dont call it Buddhism.
@@Teller3448
buddha
a pointillistic image
whether true or untrue
its the dots
that
give
it
away
@@Teller3448 well, what does the word "Buddhism" mean? Two standard translations are: a) awakening, and b) enlightening. They both indicate, albeit with some nuances in meaning (--> fields of association), the shining up (--> Zen-lore symbolism of the "Morning Star") of an decisive insight into "suchness" or "true reality", and so forth.
The historic Gautama Siddharta most likely was an experienced Yogi, as well as a Noble Man (from birth) quite versed in the religio-philosophical world-views in the India of his time. According to standard lore, he went well along with many supposedly universal psycho-cosmological concepts, circulating then, including that one of re-birth, respectively of re-incarnation---which implies, as a rule, a "soul", a "core self", you name it..., which "becomes flesh" (in-carn-ation), and thereupon unfolds its "innate, core nature", and so forth.
However, the implied decisive insight into "what holds the world at core together" (W. Goethe, "Faust"), does not necessarily imply exactly the standard concepts of Karma (i.e., the "endless finite" world-knot, the Daoist Big Loom, etc.) or Rebirth (i.e., souls wandering from body to body, etc.).
This about is, what S. Batchelor---with some fairly well founded arguments, in my view---seems to point out.
In fact, he forwards a quite complex and sophisticated argument, which invites people to further research---which, again, implies that he dwells more in the "asking, searching modus" than in the "dogmatic" one, reminding one of Sokrates´ heuristic motto of "Scio nescio!".
One can even find some precedences in some concepts of Master Dôgen, like a) that one of a "total dynamism", and b) that semi-voluntaristic one of "utomost excertion", as can be found, e.g., in the essay "Uji" (Being-Time). They also already seem to provide some "zen-ish" justification for more "unorthodox" interpretations of Buddha`s core-concepts (which are transmitted to us via the traditions of the "old schools", on the one side, as well as they can be inferred, respectively deduced, via comparative cultural-anthropological studies, and so forth, on the other side).
In such way, the hermeneutic wheel keeps turning.
Knowing annata, what is it that could be reborn?
Yoka Daishi 665-713:
'A true follower of the Way speaks with certainty.
You who lack will and self-discipline, be inquiring!
Going straight to the root is the hallmark of the Buddha;
Picking up leaves and collecting branches is no use at all.
'
Could the answer to the question of rebirth not be similar to Vasubandhu's notion of 'selfless' karma? "the past action inaugurates a causal series, which eventuates in the result at a later time via a number of intermediate steps. When I act now, it does not alter some eternal soul, but it does alter the future of my aggregates by sparking a causal series." (stanford)
in other words, 'I' am not reborn, however there is a complex rebirth of the skhandas or dharmas
And the beauty of it is... None of us can ever know 😊
Cheers, Brad.
The best explanation of rebirth and Karma I've ever read is written in Buddhism from Within. Have you read it?
I think reincarnation is a highly misunderstood aspect of buddhism. People seem to believe that they will be reborn and come back as another person. But if buddhism doesn't accept the existence of a separate self, which it doesn't, then who is being reborn and coming back? That just doesn't add up.
Maybe something carries on, but practice shows us that it can't be 'us' or 'me', right?
The last part of that sutra could be construed as admonishing against koan work. "Who is this?" is a very popular koan.
The issue isn’t psychological, ie, whether it’s possible for somebody to claim to be a Buddhist and not believe in rebirth. The issue is logical- can somebody deny rebirth while still coherently actually being a Buddhist, ie, have those core set of beliefs uniquely expanded by the Buddha. And those core beliefs revolve around dukkha and escape from the suffering of rebirth. The entire house of Buddhist cards falls if there is no rebirth. Second, there’s an issue of credibility with everything else the Buddha said, because of the belief in rebirth is false, then hard to believe anything else he said that isn’t independently verifiable or reasonable.
Rebirth is integral to Buddhism. As sin is integral to Christianity. It makes no sense why Jesus died on the cross if there’s no such thing as sin.
Logic and contradiction matter. That’s why theologians and monks and scholars think carefully about various core issues- to avoid the absurdity of contradiction. The central intellectual problem with Buddhism is that rebirth makes no sense in light of what we know about the brain and human evolution. Makes no sense whatsoever.
The self is constantly arising - More than a belief, it is suffering.
The self is constantly dying and born. As a constant identity time is illusory, space is illusory by dividing us into different people. There is only IT.
Also, there are no Buddhist texts older than the first four Nikayas of the Pali canon.
The world of Buddhism forms a huge "stream-system" and you can find nearly any possible standpoint, if you only search long enough, so not only my impression.
One thing, however, seems very obvious: "incarnation", "re-incarnation", "birth-death", you name it ..., have been playing an important, if not pivotal role in the teachings from the beginnings, starting with the (half-)legendary "F i r s t S e r m on" of Gautama Siddharta, in which he explains the gist of his experience of "awakening-enlightenment-liberation" under the Bodhi-tree---and one of the three (?) cardinal "marks" presented is: the Enlightened One can now (!) clearly remember all past lives and, moreover, gain insights in their basic "conditions of possibility" (I. Kant).
Later, in addition, the system of the 12 Nidanas was conceptualized/formalized by some scholars/schools in the following way: One complete cycle of this twelve-fold chain---undulating from "lethe" to "aletheia" and from "aletheia" to "lethe" (as the old Greek might have said, which also dived deep into this "matter")---spans three lifetimes.
These visions/concepts/models are part of the standard lore or "little catechism", so to speak. Are they a sine-qua-non? I personally would not dare to definitively decide on this question.
Still more basic, however, seems to be the (imagery of) the "big divide" between Samsâra and Nirwâna, which somehow allows to sidestep the problem of "re-incarnation"---which, again, forms one aspect of the more encompassing (Gestalt-)concept of "time-being" or "vital space-time", or of "pan ta rei" (Heraklit), etc.
This general frame/horizon also allows for "alternate models" beyond the classic plain realism of the "eternal return of always the same"---to borrow here a congenial expression from Friedrich Nietzsche. In his "essays" on existence-philosophy, Nietzsche at one point generalized certain models/rules/regularities of gasses/fluids in physics presented first by Daniel Bernoulli---main work: "Hydrodynamica sive de viribus et motibus fluidorum commentarii" (publ. 1738), a study on circular aspects of aggregate states in a closed system, and so forth---and transferred them into the realm of human metaphysical world-views.
To me, rebirth is the foundational reason for the Busdhist path at all. Yes being too occupied by it is wrong thinking, but that doesn't negate the concept. I'm always astonished that Western practitioners have to fo to such lengths as Steven to deny it.
Brad, what on earth were you wearing over the flannel shirt?
I believe in Open Individualism.
"Open individualism is the view in the philosophy of self, according to which there exists only one numerically identical subject, who is everyone at all times." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism
Feels right to me, but in the end, I don't know.
(edit: Empty Individualism is kind of depressing lol)
Some buddhist believe in heaven realms as well.
Nice 🙏💜
I enjoy the conversation about rebirth and ethics... you will be reborn at least into the next moment (if you dont die!). So you might as well not steal that bike. Having stolen the bike would probably mean someone will steal your bike eventually. And what if you need that bike to get to the zen sit. If you had enough drive i guess you could walk, but biking is faster. If youve emptied all your karma and are a fully realized arhat you might not want to go to zen, but on the off chance you are not you might need a bit of good karma so you can keep up your buddhist practice.
I'm a Chan Buddhist and most of my experience from practice has been around Chinese and I haven't came across any questions or disputes around re-birth as of yet maybe it's a cultural debate? I'm not sure but the few times I've heard it mentioned in Mandarin or English it hasn't seemed a question.
Sinitic religio-philosophic systems are full of circulatory models, beginning with pre-classic Yìjing-learning, then there we have especially the (semi-legendary) classic Daoist Master Zhuang Zhou, who talks a lot about natural cycles, metamorphosis, and the ever pulsating Big Way (道), and so on.
Then, in the so called Kôan-literature (which developed mainly out of biographical texts), relevant concepts are also all around the place, like "dependant mutual arising" (缘起), "common causes-effects" (共缘), stretching across multiple own and other existences, and anedoctes about foxes and other "wandering existents", some quite common, some quite exotic, and so forth.
And in "popular religion", the circle-paradigm (including life-circles of "sentient beings") was and is even more widespread; but it often leads to rather "betwixed" "narratives" (folk-tales and folk-ways, etc.), often spun around the ancestor-cult(s), but also other pupular cults/creed, stretching across different regions/ethnicities.
Taking all this in regard, I wonder how you never noticed this cultural (sub)text, which, I would argue, is plainly evident inside the Sinitic World.
Maybe, it is because practicioners (修行者) of Chán/Sôn/Zen lastly aspire at radical "transcendence" (超越) and, on that account, the problem/affair/question of re-birth is side-passed, or even hidden behind a "linguistic taboo" (Bernard Faure)? That this is the case, can be inferred---if we take them as a strong indicator---from relevant debates between masters of the Chán-School, on the one side, and masters of the Pure-Land School, on the other side.
What makes rebirth-models/concepts/scenarios on a higher degree interesting in the context of Buddhism, is, i.m.o., the fact that the whole soteriology ("way of healing") derives much of its plausibilty from them. Example given: The big narrative of the endless wandering in Samsara, unfolded as a veritable "horror-scenario", forms one, if not "the" logic basis for the unfolding of the big narrative of awakening-enlightenment-liberation: Nirwana "technically" complements Samsara in a congenial way.
Examples from Zen-modernism, however, show that alternative narratives can also be unfolded with higher plausibility... and, again, debates ensue around questions/affairs/problems regarding the "right way", as so often before in the history of (Zen-)Buddhism.
What you report is really interesting to hear, might be good stuff for later discussions.
Reincarnation is necessary, we're all connected to the past, physically and psychologically, and the beings of the past love us and want the best for us, because we live from them, we are them!!! My body disintigrates!!! Where will it go!!?? ! lol
I don't know.
Yeah, I feel like the weird view of time that Dogen talks about, which I feel I agree with, makes reincarnation into a different concept. What does it mean for a "future" life to be after "this" one if the future and the past are all expressions of the one moment?
This is a (serious) play with the classic conundrum of "all in one, one in all", and it falls under the "jurisdiction" of the "mechanics of logic" (--> and AI demonstrates that they are more than pure psychology) of the "infinite regress".
What had Master Dôgen "really" (--> defínition) in "mind" (--> definition)? He won`t and/or can`t tell---or, at least, not "in orderly fashion"---, but keeps on circling---and does just so, supposedly, in order to "point to the moon", or something like that (he obviously pursued certain concrete intentions with his speeches/writings, which can at least partly be decodified...).
One standard explanation would be Tiantái-holism (then mainly represented by the "establishment" on Mount Hiei), as expressed in programmatic catchphrases, like: "Three thousand worlds [are inherent] in one moment [and vice versa]!"
But, then again, Dôgen brands just such "imagery" in the Gakudô-yôjin-shû ("Exhortations to study the Way") as "heretic". In this way, Dôgen Kigen`s words appear---in synopsis and according to standard criteria of logic in the wider sense (i.e., logic as basic universal grammar of human language, "mirroring" the universe as such)---as highly self-contradictory. And now, taking the meta-perspective, one may ask: Is this an expression of his own variant of de(con)structionism---and does it really work well? And so on, and so forth...
The hermeneutical circle keeps turning, which, again, seems to be a quite natural thing for the species of Homo sapiens, the "knowingly knowing human being"...
The belief that reincarnation reinforces/enforces ethical behavior is weak tea. I think reincarnation is an interesting thing to talk about and play around with. The more I play around with this idea I start to think that when we are reclaimed to the cosmos (death) - our bodies transition into a new phase of existence that feeds other things (decomposition, etc.) However, the rebirth of our consciousness has yet to be competently experienced and recorded. I’ll end there. My cats need attention.
First of all Buddhism has been encroached by Hindu ideas and beliefs. Past life and rebirth is the one such idea.
According to Buddhism life is ephemeral and all forms and phenomenon are due to coming together of it’s constituent cause and conditions. So our constituent conditions including body and mind will eventually disintegrate and disperse. So there is no eternal immortal soul or inner self that is subject to birth or death or afterlife.
So the mind that we develop during course of our life will eventually disintegrate and disperse with the body. So there is no inner self that is to be reborn or reincarnated. This is the only opportunity to live and experience this life fully for which you need to grow and mature, develop and detach.
For that buddha gave the way of 3 surrenders, 4 noble truths, 5 moral characters, and 8 rules of living.
Buddha will never lie just to entice or scare people with the bait of next life. Buddha never gave false consolations. Idea of past and next birth in Buddhism is introduced by the Vedic Hindus to contaminate Buddhism. Buddha has said to believe in your own experience, knowledge and wisdom. Be your own light is what is buddha told his disciples. Do don’t believe something unless you have known it yourself.
Thank you for your comment, I just started to learn about Buddhism today and I just read we shouldn't believe in heaven or anything that fulfills our desires but then I hear there is a reincarnation path after fulfilling certain requirements, it didn't make sense, thanks to you I'll just ignore that aspect because I think it is our selfishness trying to get a reward of afterlife to fulfill our desires, and that doesn't seem a true .
I wonder if reincarnation is like karma, where you don't point it at other people. Some people need it. I'm not one of those people but I get why. Maybe later I'll need it to make sense of the world, but even then, I hope I don't use that to question other people's "Buddhistness"
I believe I don't know!
Yes buddhists need to believe in Reincarnation/Rebirth anything else is wrong view
There are proofs for reincarnation and law of karma on internet and in books. Basis of Budhism is reincarnation and law of karma . The necessity of Budhism is impermanence sufferings and concept of no soul . Budhism guides us to stay in human world and heavens until final stage is attained 🙏🙏🙏
The cause and effect of Karma was central to the Buddha’s teaching. Why bother if rebirth doesn’t exist?
I don't get that.
@@HardcoreZen In other words... Karma (and mental afflictions) is what leads to the perpetual cycling of rebirth in samsara.
If there is no such thing as rebirth... why care about the cause and effect of karma?
Sorry... I didn’t state that very well first time.
@@Composer19691 Well said Paul! Dogen writes extensively about this in a chapter called...
'Karmic Retribution in the Three Temporal Periods'.
Yes, Karma and reincarnation are tightly connected. So why bother trying to be a good person if this life is the only one we get? So we are just like Christians and Muslims then? We act good out of fear of "punishments" if we don`t? Not good enough for me. We act good out of empathy, right?
@@marcusgronwall1340 Right on, brother. I would add that we are practicing to be clear in the here and now so as to act with powerful and transformational compassionate action for the sake of all beings. And we vow to do this in whatever moment we are in, regardless of whether reincarnation is from life to life or merely a rebirth and death from one moment to the next.
I'll also say that karma is just karma, there is no inherently good or bad karma. What you do with it is what matters most.
Evola also addressed this problem in The Doctrine of Awakening.
I should cut down on rice pudding
If I wanted guilt to be my motivation for kindness, Id stick with the Abraham's 😂
The thing with Buddhism and Taoism that makes it so beautiful to me is that 1000 practitioners could believe 1000 different things, and that its okay, within those systems of belief. Whereas, say protestants and catholics may believe the same core beliefs, but are so dogmatic that their differences create such a divide for them.
Why you wanna run around believing things, anyway? Don't you have better things to do?
actually, buddha may have been right with his assertion that people developed sexual organs after learning to farm rice.
see, if you just view it in isolation, it clearly makes no sense.
allow me to sprinkle some theosopical doctrine into the mix:
according to it, there are 7 "root-races" for humanity, we are currently the 5th I think, the previous ones were the atlantean and prior to that the lemurians.
these were "humans" nothing like us, they didnt even inhabit this place in the 3d realm, but some other parallel dimension..
the "fall" of humankind from that other dimension into the current one in the transition period was roughly when agriculture developed.
there you go.
buddha clearly simplified it a lot. but if thats true, then it makes sense... and judging by what other traditions teach, it may be...
once that transition happened, the sexual organs formed and by having sex, we lost our original state!
we know from ancient texts that lemurian or atlantean (dont quite know which, i mix them up) had sex completely differently, its commonly known as "sex magick" or tantra these days but when they united, there didn't occur any loss of sexual energy (expressed in its grosser form [in the physical plane] as sexual fluids and in the subtle form, as prana/chi/energy etc. vigor or virja, the vedic sanskrit text calls it I think)
the biblical narrative talks about Adam & Eve "eating" from the "forbidden tree placed at the midst of the garden" and proverbs 30:20 states that a "whore eats and wipes her mouth and says she has done no wickedness". so its clear that the "fall" is due to sex. the forbidden tree represents the sexual organs, the "garden" is the human body, "eating" is having sex...
you can find this also in hinduism (allthough, there its not the "fall").
its all linked to the kundalini energy (called Holy Spirit in Christendom)... even in buddhism, you find about its energetic movements, which is called "piti" there..
this is why brahmacharya (celibacy) is a big thing.
even in buddhism, the real connotation behind "desire" that needs to be get rid of, is sexual.
its sexual desire.
you need to be celibate and retain your sexual fluids, the "holy grail".. i digress.
these things are all linked together...
Oh boy...
"we know from ancient texts that lemurian or atlantean"
psychosis i am afraid
That really reminded me of Ghostbusters! (the first part, before the sex)
@@benhorner8430 that is what Claude Lévi-Strauss called "wild thinking", I suppose.
@@osip7315 thats ignorance..
the theosophical texts which refer to these old texts, make mention of it.
its not something i concocted myself. go read "the secret doctrine" from Helena Blavatsky.
and she herself got it from much older manuscripts...
i think traces of it can even be found in the sumerian tablets - dont quote me on that though!
edit: she makes mention of those "root races" with Manu being the progenitor of our root race. don't confuse "root race" with races as we know it.
a root race has sub races, which is more likely what we understand as "race". all of humanity, right now, is of root race #5, having multiple sub-races within that root-race, like whites, blacks, asian, indian, etc. etc.
again, this is not my opinion, this is theosopical thought!