Buddhism teaches the doctrine of rebirth. Between a series of lifetimes there is a relationship of causality, not of identity. To make this more clear, let's use the example of the falling dominos. If I place a series of dominos standing up in line next to each other, and I strike the first one to make it fall down, this causes the second one to fall down, and the next, until the last in line falls down. The fall of the first domino is the cause of the fall of the last one, but there is not a shared identity between the first and the last domino. When somebody dies, rebirth is caused by the continuation of the mental processes of the dead person in a new body. The new person however is not identical to the one that left the previous body (a lot of causes and conditions come into play to shape this new being), nor a completely different person (because of causality relation).It's an important thing to be aware of as Christians, because the fancy is in westerners that it is personhood that somehow gets transferred to a new life; actually, in Buddhist teaching, it's a knot of karma that somehow ends up in another life. Actually, in a kind of way I could support that as a CHristian depending on just how you thought the causality worked, but the issue would be about the survival of the person. And that's where the fact of a God who is personal (though not exhaustively so, as many misunderstand) is important. Personhood is important in Christianity, but not so much in Buddhism. Our personhood 'survives' (or is resurrected) because it reflects and is sustained by a personal God in whom relatedness and communication are important. It is interesting that the concept of personhood remains important in our culture (a hangover from the heavy Christian influence of the past?) to the point of affecting Western appropriation of 'exotic' religions. (This can be seen in some Western converts to Mohammedanism/Islam who carry a hangover idea of God as Love, which is essentially alien to Mohammedan islam).
I could say more but I've got to go the the hospital. Happy to deal with comments though.
Reincarnation vs. Rebirth
6 comments:
Meditators know the reality very closely . Meditators have very deep observation so they believe in everything which exists.
Re-incarnation appears to be fact.
Rebirth is ‘YES’. I know about my previous birth. My most Revered Guru of my previous life His Holiness Maharaj Sahab, 3rd Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith had revealed this secret to me during trance like state.
HE told me, “Tum Sarkar Sahab Ho” (You are Sarkar Sahab). Sarkar Sahab was one of the most beloved disciple of His Holiness Maharj Sahab and He later on succeded as the fourth Guru of Radhasoami Faith.
Since I don’t have any direct realization of it so I can not claim the extent of its correctness. But it seems to be correct. During my previous birth I wanted to sing the song of ‘Infinite’ but I could not do so then since I had to leave the mortal frame at a very early age. But through the unbounded Grace and Mercy of my most Revered Guru that desire of my past birth is being fulfilled now.
Anirudh, I'm pleased you have been prepared to post. I just wish that in this case you'd actually responded to the issues I was bringing up: anything to help understand personhood in relation to teachings about reincarnation would have been good.
While it is interesting that a spiritual figure whom you trust has told you something, it doesn't help move the reflection forward. First off, I have no reason to trust the 'revelation' you do and a number of reasons not to. Secondly, I think you may not have much reason to trust it either because, in the light of what my post says; there are big questions about what is meant in respect of personhood and karma. Pointedly: who or what is the 'you' that supposedly wanted to sing the song of the infinite? And what is the nature of any supposed connection between that entity and the Anirudh who posted a comment here?
In addition, you say little about yourself: are you a westerner who has entered into an eastern faith and can offer comment about western and eastern 'contact' in religious matters; or are you an easterner who perhaps has little understanding of the personalist heritage of western Christian and post-Christian culture and philosophy?
I am an Indian. I have my educational qualifications in: B.Sc. (Bio.), M.A. (Psy.), B.Ed., Adv. Dip. in Management. During the last more than ten years I am working for the synthesis to spiritualism and science. You may search Google for details of my work.
Regards
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi
Good to see you respond to the last question I asked. I'm interested in the issues I raise in my posting. If you have comment on the specifics rather than simply advertising a particular religious system which may or may not have something to say to the issues I raise, then please do make specific links explaining something about how the links might deal with the issue(s).
Thanks for your post, Andii. My students are trying to learn the differences between rebirth and reincarnation for AQA A Level Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion module. Your domino example works quite well in illustrating a *different* notion of karmic consequences from the normal assumption that 'I' carry on to another life. I have used this as an example of a Buddhist idea where our stream of consciousness is typically thought to dissolve or disintegrate (at least to some extent) at death, rather than a typical Hindu concept where personal identity is maintained through to the next life. . I think it is interesting that you have suggested that personhood is important in our culture, and that for Christians our personal identity is sustained by our relationship with God. I believe that personhood is important for most Hindus too, as they may argue that each person has a divine spark (atman) of the universal spirit, (Brahman).
I think that I should mention that the domino simile is not mine but from the refeered link (click the heading of my post) ie http://www.geocities.com/dharmawood/reincarn_v_rebirth.htm sorry that wasn't clearer.
I'm interested in your comment about a possble 'personalist' approach in Hindu dharma (which school/s?) as what you say doesn't -to me- indicate a persoanal understanding in that the atman need not be personal. It would require that Brahman is in some sense personal and then that the indwelling spark shared that. If Brahman is not personal or not essentailly so, than it could be that the atman is something a-personal which is overlaid by (less 'ultimate') phenomena which we think of as personhood or personality. I would tend to think that the implication of transmigration of souls would be something like this, since the different genders, conditions, psychosomatic substrates in each human life make it difficult to see what exactly migrates that could be identified as human personality or identity. But that's how I see it just now; I'm interested to know if there are further ways of developing this line of enquiry.
Post a Comment