Paul, I have read that Buddhism's take on reincarnation is more like links in a chain, whereas Hinduism's is more like beads on a string (with the string being the same soul in continuity). What is your take on that?
Printable View
Paul, I have read that Buddhism's take on reincarnation is more like links in a chain, whereas Hinduism's is more like beads on a string (with the string being the same soul in continuity). What is your take on that?
The analogy seems to work ok. The Buddha's teaching emhasise the middle way beween two extremes. The first extreme is eternalism whch is th idea of a soul continuing through lives. The second extreme is annihilation, the idea that everything dies with the body. The Buddha's explanation is that the energy from one life causes the next life. The classical image is of one candle flame lighting a second,and then the first being blown out. The two flames are not the same but clearly one caused the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewoberg
The debate between eternalism and annihilation went on in the Buddha's day, and clearly i still going on today.
Analogy-wise, if we are (universal) fire, then we might be eternal--but if we are (the more humble) flame, then we are annihilated. Maybe something like that?
I'm not sure Billl. I think the candle flame analogy is used because of the causal relationship between the two candles,without there being anything of the first candle flame in the second.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
I think that most analogies will probably fall flat for both religion's beliefs regarding the cycle of life and death. My understanding of The Upanishads leads me to think that a single continuing soul is a simplification of the actual Hindu philosophical underpinnings, and likewise my understanding of Theravada Buddhism. I think that while analogies like the above are useful as easy explanations, in some ways belie the deeper teachings.
I'm less familiar with Mahayana Buddhism's approach to this issue, but in general it seems to me that Mahayana Buddhism focuses more on practical issues than philosophical ones. I could be wrong on that, though.
I agree that the analogies serve a limited purpose, and I think that the teachings contain a much deeper aspect than is first apparent upon reading. I'm not sure about the Upanishads having had little to do with them since Uni, but you're probably right that the simple translation to the Western Soul will undoubtedly be a simplificcation. It is the same in Buddhism where one of Jesus' sayings - "As you sow, so you reap" is equated with Karma. There is a link, but the idea of Karma is a much deeper idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewoberg
The Therevada and Mahayana are surprisingly consistent in the basic outline of the Buddha's teachings, in fact it goes across all the schools such as Zen etc. What the Mahayana did was to develop the teachings of Buddha through gifted teachers such as Lama Tsongkhapa in Tibet, Atisha and others. I'm not sure they are more practically focused, but there is a lot more of the mystical side to Buddhism.
Then why they don't they produce better teachings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Then why don't the gurus produce a proper translation that spells things out to the "Western Soul" with full detail?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Or both might be silly ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
There is no evidence for heaven or reincarnation - the fact that both of these ideas are circulating shows that neither have anything much to back them. As Plato pointed out through the mouth of Socrates, in his Apology, we know nothing about what happens after death.
So why base anything on something we know nothing about? The guy next door thinks the tooth fairy takes us up to heaven if we have left at least ten teeth under the pillow. Nonsense? Why is it any more nonsense than Karma or the Pearly Gates?
The fact is, down here, bad guys often get big money and sexy women. Live with it. We cannot know if they have a bad time after death or not. On the weight of evidence, I think almost probably not!
Our consciousness is so tied up with the body that I reckon when that's gone, consciousness is gone. Voila - there is your end to suffering! I might be wrong, but I have no need of any other hypothesis, so I might as well go with this simplest, most sensible, hypothesis, until more evidence comes along...
They do - these are just some of the analogies they use. The thing with the teachings is that they are instructions for practice, not just theories, and so it is impossible to appreciate the depth of teachings without following the instructions and experiencing them for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Again they may have, and I may be doing Hindus a disservice to suggest that they haven't. Hinduism isn't my area, but I was surmising given my experience of Buddhist teachings.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
They might be silly ideas and you might be wrong, but it would take investigation of the ideas to find out. Buddhist teachings claim that rincarnation is a fact. This is based upon meditational experience. There is a practice whereby anyone can investigate their former lives. It is difficult, takes dedication, but can be done. Of course someone who begins with the premise that it is nonsense is never going to complete such a practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
The thing I like about Buddhism is that it does not say believe this because I said it. The instructions are quite clear - do this practice and find out for yourself. I like that, and I think it is an honest approach.
I think you're right about the bad guys too. Does it really make them happy though in the long run? - or the short run for that matter. The obvious answer is yes yes and yes again. Money women - what more could a man want? Buddhist teachings say that we are all suffering even when we feel happy. The basis of this is that it sets up the expectation that happiness will be repeated, will continue, can be regained, when our own experience often tells us it can't. And in the end we die and leave whatever behind.
As for consciousness being tied up with the body - the teachings say not, and i don't think science has been able to nail the brain and consciousness down. It is a huge asumption to make based upon current knowledge. Yes if you stimulate the brain in a certain way, a certain thing will happen. The Buddhist explanation forthis is that the mind operates through the brain, but is not of it. So far this has not been disproved, and can be denied - it is claimed, by investigation through meditation.
Just a question mal4mac, why the hostility? If Paul feels that Buddhism makes his life better, why should that bother you?
If he were trying to proselytize or something, I'd understand a certain level of irritation. But it seems to me that in this thread he has taken great pains to calmly explain one aspect of his religious life in a non-offensive, non-proselytizing way.
Taking a guess on the 'self' Buddhism rejects. Say an idea of yours is under attack, you feel outraged because you feel you are under attack, because you feel you are responsible for that idea. This is false becaue your other ideas are responsible. Because you do not identify these ideas you feel it is you, which is thus a confusion out of ignorance. So the more you understand your mind the less you feel you exist. And the more you understand other things the less you feel they exist. All llusions, confusions out of our ignorance... I fail to see how meditation as opposed to thought can clear these illusions, however, is meditation supposed to assist thought or actually a thought process?
It seems apparant that many sorts of happiness can be regained over and again if we know when to stop and when to not. And what happen in the end does not matter to what happen in the 60 years or so unless we keep worrying about it... I am under the impression that ancient Greeks would not convert to Buddhism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Why isn't there any objective evidence? If people could investigate their former lives they could tell archaeologists where "the treasure" is bueried, and then the evidence could be dug up. Let that happen enough times and I might start to believe in this stuff - but there is as much evidence for "former lives" as there is for the tooth fairy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
But the practice takes many lifetimes, and meanwhile you give money to Chogyam to feed his alcohol and fast car addictions, and worship him as an "enlightened master".Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
The way to deal with bad guys is to improve the justice system, not escape into Buddhist metaphysics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
This is equivalent to someone saying: "We have just had our fill of dinner, but we are hungfy even though we feel full." It's not even a paradox. It's just pure nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
This is what I really dislike about Buddhism - it propounds such teaching in an attempt to seem profound. You can't understand them and think it is you that is the problem, when really the teaching is just daft.
Objective evidence is always going to be a problem. It's not going to be there. The people who do remember their past lives have no interest in buried treasure, or of objective proof either - probably because there isn't any. A person's own expriences are the proof they need.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
It's not hard to see why there's no objective proof. Most beings are born with no memory of the past, and don't feel any tangible connection, although they may detect an emotional connection to people and places. It can be hard enough to detect a past relative in geneology circles. What do they get? A name, birth, death certificate. Census returns. Probably no photograph. How much harder would it be to detect a former life?
The truth is no-one should believe in it without reason to. If it doesn't work for you, then it's not a problem.
It does take many lifetimes - there's no doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Chogyam Trungpa is an example that anyone who doesn't control their mind runs the risk of damaging themselves, others, and their reputation. This is not generally the case though. The teachings state that no-one should receive payment for giving teachings. The teachings are free. Also monks and Nuns have rules governing what they can own. No-one should trust a teacher who is in it fo the money. It is all about the motivation.
Like any religion or organisation, there is always the risk that someone will give it a bad name. It's a human thing.
I couldn't agree more. No buddhist I know advocates a softer approach than the law provides. Buddhism is sometimes regarded as a doormat religion with nicey nicey people spreading love and meditating. Ths is a misconception, and it is nothing like that at all. It is very focused in it's purposes. I blame the hippies.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
"We have just had our fill of dinner, but we are hungfy even though we feel full."Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
It's more like being full, but wondering where the next meal will be coming from. Even as we experience happiness, we get to know that the night will end, the holiday will finish, the car will rust, we will get older, tireder, sicker. At the pinnacle of a glittering career, you know, I know and they know that there's only one way to go - down. It's more like this feeling.
That's not the whole story though. The experience of happiness builds an expectation - a desire for it to continue. It may well continue in the short term, but will definately end at some point, and the individual has no power to halt this. This is expressed in teachings on Impermanence. It may be the reason why the romantic hopes of many love songs are expressed in hopes for an everlasting or eternal love. Consider the politicians gripping onto power way past their time to go - like M Thatcher, or the vengefulness of the formerly happy but jilted bloke. It's about attitude and expectation. It's mine. She's mine. I don't want it to stop. Then, at the end of the happiest life - partners will part - again, and again and again with reincarnation. The Buddha wasn't trying to spoil the fun, merely pointing out the source of suffering.
And the stage for all this suffering is the fact of birth, ageing, sickness and death. There's no get out for any of us.
I hope you'll pardon my explanation.
By the way, as I've said elsewhere, Buddhism doesn't suit everyone. I don't have a problem with that.
You might be right:Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stg...apters/zen.asp
"Richard Rumbold, an English Zen enthusiast, who spent about five months at the Shokokuji, a monastery in Kyoto, describes some savage beatings-up administered by the head monk and his assistant for trifling disciplinary offences"
Sex scandals, violence, murder. There was the case of the Thai Monk who killed a tourist and was condemned to death - in the 90's I think. I know of two "Heart Disciples" of a group who have been dropped due to sex scandals. A monk was murdered in Dharamsala over a sectarian dispute. Chogyam Trungpa succumbed to alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
These things are about the people. The teachings do not promote, condone or excuse such behaviour. As I've said before, there are at least 300-400 milion Buddhists, yet despite these problems - which were around at The Buddha's time, hence the large number of rules in the Vinaya - Buddhism has a good image, and for good reason.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/index.html
Buddhism was also responsible for the conversion of King Ashoka in India. He was pursuing a war, and winning, but the sight of the suffering caused by the war, he halted the conflict. When has that happened when a side has been winning?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_...ist_Conversion
Every religion has people who bring it into disrepute - catholic monks abusing children, money for followers of a certain Hindu, terrorism in Islam, fraudulent healers in Christianity. These people do not typify the religions themselves, but the delusions that power, money etc etc can bring them what they want.
Hi Pauclem, nice thread. I am interested in Buddhism and would like to ask you a couple of questions. It seems that you missed my last post, reposted below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whathappened