Rebirth

[Radius]

My study of Buddhism leads unavoidably to the concept of rebirth/reïncarnation.

And I don't get it.

I'll quote 2 pieces of the same website and comment after that:

The Buddha remembered clearly many of His past lives. Even today, many Buddhist monks, nuns and others also remember their past lives. Such a strong memory is a result of deep meditation. For those who remember their past life, Rebirth is an established fact which puts this life in a meaningful perspective.

The Buddha taught that there is no soul. Yet Rebirth still occurs without a soul. Consider this simile: on a Buddhist shrine one candle, burnt low, is about to expire. A monk takes a new candle and lights it from the old. The old candle dies, the new candle burns bright. What went across from the old candle to the new? There was a causal link but no thing went across! In the same way, there was a causal link between your previous life and your present life, but no soul has gone across.

That last quote sounds to me like having children. Your actions clearly effects them. They remember you and your life and it will change their lives and how they act.

They might learn from you good and bad things and then choose to do the same or not.

One could say your kamma passes to them (as did your parents kamma pass to you and through you also to your children). Your kamma will also be passed to everyone you meet or even don't meet. You leave a mark everywhere. One's kamma could be past to others through something you made even or just by a simple passing in the street.

But to actually remember a past life as is suggested in the first quote seems to be in direct conflict with the second.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Edited August 23, 2008 by Radius

[Nongwahyay]

I´d say it´s nothing more than a question of belief................ same as with the question of whether there is a God or not. Some are convinced of the fact, others quite the opposite. Can anyone prove their case one way or the other?? No, they can´t. Just think about it.............. after more than 2.000 years no-one has been able to prove their case..... and yet countless millions of humans have lost their lives in the course of history.. in the name of God........ and if there isn´t really a God after all???? It was all a bit of a waste of effort, to put it mildly!!!!! Does reincarnation exist???? You´ll never get a convincing or definitive answer........ it´s all a question of personal belief.

[Radius]

I am not particulary interested in if it exists or not (I will decide that for myself). I am interested in what Buddhist teachings say about it.

The above example confused me.

[camerata]

But to actually remember a past life as is suggested in the first quote seems to be in direct conflict with the second.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

There's no contradiction since memories aren't contained in a soul. AFAIK, the explanation is that a form of consciousness called bhavanga-sota connects different existences. However, this explanation wasn't given by the Buddha himself.

[Radius]

There's no contradiction since memories aren't contained in a soul. AFAIK, the explanation is that a form of consciousness called bhavanga-sota connects different existences. However, this explanation wasn't given by the Buddha himself.

It's all in the eye of the beholder then?

I mean: What you say could very easely be explained as knowledge past from father to son.

Or that people notice at a later age they do things like their parents without beeing aware of it before.

I could even explain it as doing something like someone else does but not noticing this untill later on (or never noticing it at all).

You could say part of his/her consciousness was copied onto yours (if they have died you could call it 'passing it on to you')

Edited August 23, 2008 by Radius

[IMA_FARANG]

There's no contradiction since memories aren't contained in a soul. AFAIK, the explanation is that a form of consciousness called bhavanga-sota connects different existences. However, this explanation wasn't given by the Buddha himself.

It's all in the eye of the beholder then?

I mean: What you say could very easely be explained as knowledge past from father to son.

Or that people notice at a later age they do things like their parents without beeing aware of it before.

I could even explain it as doing something like someone else does but not noticing this untill later on (or never noticing it at all).

You could say part of his/her consciousness was copied onto yours (if they have died you could call it 'passing it on to you')

The question of rebirth/reincarnation comes up many times in forums where Buddhists chat and explore Buddhist philosophy with each other.

At best the answer is that many people agree to disagree about this point.

Unlike other more organised religions there is no Buddhist "Pope" that is supposed to lay down the line for the faithful to follow.

You also have to understand that the type of Buddhism that most Thais practice is really only one version of Buddhist practice.

So there are some Buddhist practices that consider rebirth/reincarnation as a proven fact, but there are other forms of Buddhist practice that are much more skeptical about rebirth/reincarnation.

Just as the "facts" about rebirth/reincarnation are debated by different schools of practice, so the "details" of what is or isnt reborn are also debated.

Bottom line: the case just isn't settled among the many schools of Buddhist practice.

You have to make up your own mind as you see fit.

Hope that helps to make it clearer for you.

[Radius]

Hope that helps to make it clearer for you.

That is an answer I can live with.

This means I'll have to find something else that says that I am NOT a Buddhist, lol.

Seriously, everything I found about Buddhism doesn't just say a little bit what I have been saying to other people when discussing religion. It says precisely what I have been saying.

This baffles me.

Why the heck did I never study Buddhism before?

Anyway, I am enjoying this research very much and I have been pleasently surprised by Buddhism.

Anyone got any other things in Buddhism, an atheist grown up in the west, could disagree with?

[Brucenkhamen]

You're right, there is a contradiction between those two quotes, and as others have pointed out it's really up to you to decide what makes sense, nobody is telling you what to believe.

In India at the time of the Buddha (I think) re-incarnation was a given, it was part of the culture and part of pretty much every spiritual philosophy around at the time.

The Buddha didn't write anything down and his followers who did had a deeply ingrained cultural belief in reincarnation, so it's hardly surprising that references to the Buddha remembering past lives etc got embellished into the scriptures.

It's also important to remember that while you and I can appreciate the profoundness of the teachings of no self and the simile of a candle lighting a candle for the uneducated majority it's a bit beyond them.

For most people going beyond our day to day self to find freedom from suffering is not a step they are willing to take. For them a simplistic understanding of how doing good in this life leads to a better future is what motivates them to do good, and if that's they do do good as a result then it works.

[dutchguest]

Anyone got any other things in Buddhism, an atheist grown up in the west, could disagree with?

I think the explanation of buddhism leaves open two ways, one more religious with “miracles” and one more filosofical without miracles. I am not an expert in the old texts and I think you should not overestimate them, but more rely on your own common sense, and then you may find out buddhism can also be “common sense”. Anyway, my lack of knowledge of the old texts can not prevent me from having my say about almost everything. I try to explain this with the concepts of rebirth and karma:

- rebirth: if taken litterally I think it has the same function as christian heaven: if you accept suffering, injustice and poverty in this life as “natural” and do not envy or steal from people who have more, you live according the buddhist prescripts, are good and may go to heaven or come back after rebirth as a more rich person. A little bit a simplification but this kind of thinking is often part of religious thinking.

- You can also see rebirth in a more filosofical, non-personal way: life and dead are part of the evolution proces of this planet, of nature, every dead contains the matter for new life, no matter ever disappears. The idea of nirvana also means that individuals loose their individuality and separateness, become (re)united with nature, with the whole.

- The laws of karma can also be explained in these two ways: a higher rebirth if you behave good or as a psychological and social reality during life: if you behave good or bad you get it back in some way or another. I think buddhism leaves both ways open and I think most Thai people have a mix of both views, may be more religious and developing in the direction of more filosofical. Farangs have often more a filosofical approach.

- As far “suffering” is concerned I do not think life is per se all suffering, it can also be the opposite. Some suffering is a necessary part of life for everybody and it seems natural to try to avoid or reduce suffering. I also do not see suffering or enlightenment as absolute states of mind, I think most people live –existentially- somewhere in between. I get sometimes the impression of black and white thinking, you either suffer or you are enlightened.

- Another imperfection in Buddhism is in my view that it is mainly a man’s world, most monks are male. Historically it can be seen as a reaction on more female animism. But Buddhism says everything is impermanent, so they also see their own historical role as temporarely and developing.

[Koo82]

My husband strongly believes in Buddha Lord and he prays everyday.

He said what Buddha Lord taught us is not to visit temples and not to donate to monks (these are done to practice yourself to be in merci and to be kind-hearted) but only one thing: to meditate. Good monks by doing meditation have reached the level of having magic abilities to foreseen things and to see his previous life etc but Buddha Lord asked us to forget that magic power. This is not the highest level.

The highest level of Buddha practice is not to reborn. You only can reach this level if you don't hate, don't love, don't worry, don't have any family or anyone, have no need, no want, nothing--your mind is free from anything. You only meditate.

If you're reborn, you still have debt in your previous life to pay.

[rockyysdt]

Bruce.

Koo82 seems to have a point.

When you attain the highest level through Buddha practice the aim to to is escape the cycle of rebirth and suffering.

Doesn't this suggest rebirth (reincarnation)?

[Brucenkhamen]

Bruce.

Koo82 seems to have a point.

When you attain the highest level through Buddha practice the aim to to is escape the cycle of rebirth and suffering.

Doesn't this suggest rebirth (reincarnation)?

It suggests getting off a treadmill, ending a cycle. It suggests and end of one thing arising as the result of another and so on and so on to infinity.

Now you can believe there is a soul carried from each arising and passing away to the next to infinity if you want to but this would contradict the teaching of anatta.

A tree creates new life with a seed, the new tree arises and the old tree passes away, rebirth is like this, nobody would suggest the new tree inherits the soul of the old tree, but it does inherit many of it's characteristics.

[rockyysdt]

A tree creates new life with a seed, the new tree arises and the old tree passes away, rebirth is like this, nobody would suggest the new tree inherits the soul of the old tree, but it does inherit many of it's characteristics.

But if I escape the cycle of rebirth isn't it me who escapes not my off spring?

How can I escape rebirth if I can never be reborn?

Using your analogy, when I arrive at the pinnacle it sounds like either I become infertile, or my offspring will cease or will no longer be able to produce off spring.

[Brucenkhamen]

A tree creates new life with a seed, the new tree arises and the old tree passes away, rebirth is like this, nobody would suggest the new tree inherits the soul of the old tree, but it does inherit many of it's characteristics.

But if I escape the cycle of rebirth isn't it me who escapes not my off spring?

How can I escape rebirth if I can never be reborn?

Using your analogy, when I arrive at the pinnacle it sounds like either I become infertile, or my offspring will cease or will no longer be able to produce off spring.

To answer that you'd need to define what you consider to be the "me", is it your body? is it your thoughts? is it your memories? is it your kamma? What exactly is the "you"? If you can't find an exact definition then how can you define what escapes rebirth?

Obviously not the body, as there is a new one, obviously not you thoughts and memories as you cannot remember previous lives.

Whether the "me" can be reborn or not is irrelevant, this is not all about you, rebirth happens, it's part of life, it's the natural order of things. It's inherently stressful and what happens when one goes beyond that is not, though beyond that I can't describe it as I've never experienced it.

I think you've stretched my analogy beyond what I intended, it was simply intended to illustrate how cause and affect works beyond one life and how ripping a soul out of an old body and popping it into into a new body need not necessarily be the only way to understand rebirth.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Brucenkhamen

[rockyysdt]

To answer that you'd need to define what you consider to be the "me", is it your body? is it your thoughts? is it your memories? is it your kamma? What exactly is the "you"? If you can't find an exact definition then how can you define what escapes rebirth?

Obviously not the body, as there is a new one, obviously not you thoughts and memories as you cannot remember previous lives.

Whether the "me" can be reborn or not is irrelevant, this is not all about you, rebirth happens, it's part of life, it's the natural order of things. It's inherently stressful and what happens when one goes beyond that is not, though beyond that I can't describe it as I've never experienced it.

I think you've stretched my analogy beyond what I intended, it was simply intended to illustrate how cause and affect works beyond one life and how ripping a soul out of an old body and popping it into into a new body need not necessarily be the only way to understand rebirth.

If your body, memories, thoughts (essentially you) aren't reborn then what is the point of seeking to stop the cycle of rebirth?

After all if you no longer exist how can you suffer anyway?

If you aren't reborn then who or what are you trying to stop from suffering?

[Brucenkhamen]

If your body, memories, thoughts (essentially you) aren't reborn then what is the point of seeking to stop the cycle of rebirth?

After all if you no longer exist how can you suffer anyway?

If you aren't reborn then who or what are you trying to stop from suffering?

The point is that which is reborn is not your body, memories, thoughts, it's delusion. Body, memories, thoughts are not self, they arise and they pass away naturally without creating suffering.

What gets reborn is the desire to exist, the desire to be a self separate and distinct from the rest of reality, this is delusion. So ending the cycle of rebirth is ending this delusion, and ending the cycle of delusion creating suffering.

This suffering is not your "self", it's not your suffering, it affects all those around you also, so it's not "you" finding freedom from suffering, it's suffering ceasing.

This doesn't necesarilly mean that the body, memories, thoughts, cease to exist in the way they always have done, but they cease to perpetuate my "self" as the main character in a never ending story going nowhere.

[rockyysdt]

The point is that which is reborn is not your body, memories, thoughts, it's delusion. Body, memories, thoughts are not self, they arise and they pass away naturally without creating suffering.

What gets reborn is the desire to exist, the desire to be a self separate and distinct from the rest of reality, this is delusion. So ending the cycle of rebirth is ending this delusion, and ending the cycle of delusion creating suffering.

This suffering is not your "self", it's not your suffering, it affects all those around you also, so it's not "you" finding freedom from suffering, it's suffering ceasing.

But if you cease (die) then that also ceases your suffering as you no longer exist (you've indicated there is no reincarnation or passing of a soul.)

Why follow a path to end the cycle of rebirth, when death automatically ends you?

This doesn't necessarily mean that the body, memories, thoughts, cease to exist in the way they always have done, but they cease to perpetuate my "self" as the main character in a never ending story going nowhere.

If you are dead how can your "self" perpetuate?

Edited September 6, 2008 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

What gets reborn is the desire to exist, the desire to be a self separate and distinct from the rest of reality, this is delusion.

If you are dead and no longer exist, how can you have a desire to be reborn and live in delusion?

[IMA_FARANG]

Hope that helps to make it clearer for you.

That is an answer I can live with.

This means I'll have to find something else that says that I am NOT a Buddhist, lol.

Seriously, everything I found about Buddhism doesn't just say a little bit what I have been saying to other people when discussing religion. It says precisely what I have been saying.

This baffles me.

Why the heck did I never study Buddhism before?

Anyway, I am enjoying this research very much and I have been pleasently surprised by Buddhism.

Anyone got any other things in Buddhism, an atheist grown up in the west, could disagree with?

Since I'm the person who made the original response about rebirth....saying that it was not a proven thing, but something you have to make up your mind about for yourself, I want to make it clear what I meant about rebirth/reincarnation.

You seemed to take what I said about rebirth to be a reason to 'not believe in' Buddhisim.

I never said that or intended that.

What I said was that rebirth/reincarnation is a point of debate among Buddhists. I never said that that was a reason to "not believe" in Buddhism.

I consider myself a Buddhist. I just don't know whether rebith is a reality or not. In my opinion, it doesn't matter.

For me, Buddhisim offers a moral code and a way of life that I like. Whether or not I will be "reborn" or not is irrelevant. It is the moral code and way of life I want to follow. Agreeing or disagreeing with some points of Buddhist philosophy, does not make me "not a Buddhist".

Just want to make the point clear.

[Brucenkhamen]

But if you cease (die) then that also ceases your suffering as you no longer exist (you've indicated there is no reincarnation or passing of a soul.)

Why follow a path to end the cycle of rebirth, when death automatically ends you?

Your line of questioning can be summed up with the simple phrase "What's in it for me?"

Well, it's not about you, freedom from suffering aka enlightenment is the next evolutionary step, it's a good thing to happen. When the sun shines do you ask "What's in it for me?" or do you just think this is a good thing and go on with your day? Enligtenment is a good thing to happen, it doesn't have to happen to you to be good, the world is a better place each time somebody throwes off delusion and gains freedom from suffering.

Now you can choose to stay in the delusion that you exist and as seperate self and enjoy the suffering that arises as a result or you can take the next evolutionary step and see beyond "what's in it for me?"

The point is that you never did exist as an entity seperate from the rest of reality, so it's not a matter of ceasing something but a matter of realising that it was a delusion.

If you are dead how can your "self" perpetuate?

The self perpetuates by it's desire to exist and continue to be the main character the drama of life. Nowe when the body dies I don't know for sure what happens but I'm of the opinion that the desire to exist and continue to be the main character the drama of life is the kamma that creates a new self. As this kamma continues to peretuate the self delusion in this life it does it continues to do it when this body dies.

[Brucenkhamen]

What gets reborn is the desire to exist, the desire to be a self separate and distinct from the rest of reality, this is delusion.

If you are dead and no longer exist, how can you have a desire to be reborn and live in delusion?

You never did exist as a separate entity, but the desire to exist as a separate entity fuels the delusion a separate entity and continues the cycle.

[rockyysdt]

Thanks Bruce.

My purpose isn't to debunk Buddhism but to better understand it.

I haven't studied the subject like many here but have tended to add to my overall knowledge of it through debate, experience and learning from others.

Now you can choose to stay in the delusion that you exist and as seperate self and enjoy the suffering that arises as a result or you can take the next evolutionary step and see beyond "what's in it for me?"The point is that you never did exist as an entity seperate from the rest of reality, so it's not a matter of ceasing something but a matter of realising that it was a delusion.

Its been already agreed that there is no soul and an entity or spirit doesn't leave a body and reappear into an other (reincarnation).

We also indicated that enlightenment is something we aim for in our life (a single shot as our ego only lives once).

The self perpetuates by it's desire to exist and continue to be the main character the drama of life.

Now when the body dies I don't know for sure what happens but I'm of the opinion that the desire to exist and continue to be the main character the drama of life is the kamma that creates a new self. As this kamma continues to peretuate the self delusion in this life it does it continues to do it when this body dies.

Just trying to grasp what you mean.

Is it that:

"When unenlightened people die with intact egos the energy due to the resulting kamma causes the "real reality" (state or entity experienced when enlightened), to generate (give birth) to more ego bound lives (illusion).

The new illusory ego bound lives are unrelated to the ones that died but the "real reality" behind them was always there, continues and unenlightened ones are not conscious of it.

That when all or a significant number (critical mass) of unenlightened humans become enlightened then the "real reality" will stop generating births of ego bound humans and suffering will end as a consequence."

Edited September 6, 2008 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

"When unenlightened people die with intact egos the energy due to the resulting kamma causes the "real reality" (state or entity experienced when enlightened), to generate (give birth) to more ego bound lives (illusion).

The new illusory ego bound lives are unrelated to the ones that died but the "real reality" behind them was always there, continues and unenlightened ones are not conscious of it.

That when all or a significant number (critical mass) of unenlightened humans become enlightened then the "real reality" will stop generating births of ego bound humans and suffering will end as a consequence."

That's pretty close to what I'm saying, though I wouldn't say the real reality generates more ego bound lives, rather that ego-boundness gives rise to more ego-boundness and so on.

It's just one interpretation and if it makes sense to you then keep it and use it until a better interpretation comes along.

I'm not sure about the last sentence though, I don't think we'll find it in any of the teachings, still I think it makes makes some sense.

[rockyysdt]

I'm not sure about the last sentence though, I don't think we'll find it in any of the teachings, still I think it makes makes some sense.

I based this on your explanation:

Well, it's not about you, freedom from suffering aka enlightenment is the next evolutionary step, it's a good thing to happen. When the sun shines do you ask "What's in it for me?" or do you just think this is a good thing and go on with your day? Enligtenment is a good thing to happen, it doesn't have to happen to you to be good, the world is a better place each time somebody throwes off delusion and gains freedom from suffering.

If it's evolutionary to achieve freedom from suffering and therefore eliminate the cycle of rebirth, and as I personally can never be reborn as my ego, body, memory, thoughts and feelings are an illusion, extinguished upon death, then the only way to stop the universal rebirth of others is for everyone (critical mass) to eliminate negative kamma and become enlightened.

Isn't when all or a significant number (critical mass) of unenlightened humans become enlightened then the "real reality" will stop generating births of ego bound humans and suffering will end as a consequence." a natural deduction?

If we become enlightened to eliminate universal rebirth and sufffering then shouldn't this be the outcome?

If we personally become extinguished then the only suffering we will eliminate is that of others by the removal of the cycle of rebirth.

Edited September 7, 2008 by rockyysdt

[Radius]

Since I'm the person who made the original response about rebirth....saying that it was not a proven thing, but something you have to make up your mind about for yourself, I want to make it clear what I meant about rebirth/reincarnation.

You seemed to take what I said about rebirth to be a reason to 'not believe in' Buddhisim.

I never said that or intended that.

What I said was that rebirth/reincarnation is a point of debate among Buddhists. I never said that that was a reason to "not believe" in Buddhism.

I consider myself a Buddhist. I just don't know whether rebith is a reality or not. In my opinion, it doesn't matter.

For me, Buddhisim offers a moral code and a way of life that I like. Whether or not I will be "reborn" or not is irrelevant. It is the moral code and way of life I want to follow. Agreeing or disagreeing with some points of Buddhist philosophy, does not make me "not a Buddhist".

Just want to make the point clear.

wow, this thread has a lot more posts now, lol. Still have to read the rest beyond this one, but I felt the need to respond.

I understood very well what you meant. But to me, when I do not agree with a fundamental part of a religion/philosophy I cannot call myself a 'believer' of that religion.

If I disagree with rebirth/reincarnation I might as well call myself a Atheist with values that are very similar to Buhddism.

So, why do you call yourself a Buddhist? Where does your philosophy differ from an Atheist like me?

Edited September 7, 2008 by Radius

[Radius]

I think an example of my thinking is in order:

I have had some very elaborate talks with a few true Christians. I say 'true' because there are many that believe in God and Jesus Christ just to not go to hel_l or because their parents or their enviroment tells them too.

After all these talks I have come to the conclusion that the both us live pretty much in the same way. We both try to do good in any way we can. We help people, we are kind, we don't force our 'beliefs' on someone and so on.

But the reason why we do it is different.

And this is where I come to an interesting point. I asked myself: "Why do I want to explain someone that allready lives in the right way, my philosophy?".

Wasted energy it seems because they allready do good, just for a different reason.

The answer is: Because I do not like people basing their actions on a dillusion. Even if the actions are good, the reason is wrong (to me).

I use the word 'dillusion' because it was mentioned above as something that can end by finding the path of enlightment Buddhism teaches about.

I am aware that I am not just me but I am also my enviroment and my enviroment is me.

I am aware that there is no reason for existance nor is there a need for that reason. It is what it is and that is ok.

I do good because I feel by doing good I improve my enviroment and thus automaticly myself as well.

After reading everything beeing said here, that sounds pretty Buddhistlike to me.

Rebirth is so far the only thing that seemed to not quite fit in the picture. Depending on how it is meant I might be able to agree with it anyway. But by reading the above it seems I will have to figure out for myself what it means for me.

Well, I allready have (Buddhism just gave it a name), and this is why I have called myself an atheist for a long long time.

To be honest, it came as quite a shock to find so many things said in a religion that I agree with 100%.

I am now maybe in some sort of denial phase that I am actually a Buddhist.

I am open to the possebility, but I do need to find out what the difference is between a Buddhist and an Atheist which just happens to have a philosophy similar to Buddhism.

[rockyysdt]

wow, this thread has a lot more posts now, lol. Still have to read the rest beyond this one, but I felt the need to respond.

I understood very well what you meant. But to me, when I do not agree with a fundamental part of a religion/philosophy I cannot call myself a 'believer' of that religion.

If I disagree with rebirth/reincarnation I might as well call myself a Atheist with values that are very similar to Buhddism.

So, why do you call yourself a Buddhist? Where does your philosophy differ from an Atheist like me (for now)?

Hi Radius.

I found your position interesting.

Until you are comfortable with all the fundamentals of a philosophy or religion you "cannot call myself a 'believer' of that religion".

Wouldn't that make you agnostic rather than atheist?

An atheist disbelieves the existance of God or a supreme being, whilst an agnostic isn't sure either way as the existence of a supreme being cannot be proven.

You've indicated you're still exploring your beliefs.

[Radius]

I disbelieve the existance of God or a supreme being. Therefor I have called myself an atheist.

And I haven't been exploring my beliefs for a while now but rather I have been seeking understanding of why people have other beliefs.

Christianity was the logical choice to research for me.

I have reached a level of understanding as to why someone chooses to believe in a God or a supreme being that is satisfactory to me (eventhough I disagree).

I always thought if the society I live in suddenly came ro realize that my philosophy is the 'truth', half of them would comit suicide and the other half would go mad.

Due to circumstances I came in touch with Buddhism and imagine my surprise that a whole country pretty much sees my philosophy as the truth. It is amazing to see the things I have been saying to others 'repeated' in Buddhism. And not just small things, even the things that to my opinion come logicly from the understanding of reality I have.

Buddhism agrees with me to an almost scary amount.

It is a complete shock to me as you might understand. I am now re-evaluating what to call myself. My beliefs will probebly not change(much) but what I call myself might.

Not that this is particulary important but when I want to explain my point of view to others it is quite handy to have a complete religion behind you.

But before I can 'use' Buddhism as my guide I must first know if I agree with it to an excaptable extend.

And maybe a deeper form of selfexploring can begin after I agree (if I agree) with Buddhism.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Radius

[rockyysdt]

But before I can 'use' Buddhism as my guide I must first know if I agree with it to an excaptable extend.

And maybe a deeper form of selfexploring can begin after I agree (if I agree) with Buddhism.

Radius

I've been looking at things in reverse.

You indicate that Buddhism should agree with you (your beliefs) and then you'll embark on deeper self exploring.

I'm trying deep self exploring (meditation) with an open mind and the view that the truth will appear through actual experience.

For me anything short of actual experience is just another belief.

The danger of first developing a belief is that you then seek things which reinforce it.

A belief can take deep hold and become unshakeable even when you're presented will compelling evidence to the contrary.

How did you develop your core beliefs?

What are your thoughts?

[Radius]

lol, thats a big question. I'll try to answer.

I am not seeking a religion to go with my beliefs. I am on a quest of knowledge. My beliefs have been formed and because of (seems now) lack of knowledge I never had a better name for it then atheism.

I have done my selfexploring. I have found the answer(s) I need. Funny enough through a form of meditation eventhough I didn't nescecarely call it that.

I, as many others, wondered about the meaning of life, why we are here, is there a God? What is the nature of reality and all those other questions that a religion is believed to answer.

Because I live in the western world, Christianity seemed the most logical place to find such answers. But after reading the Bible and doing a lot of thinking I came to the conclusion that the concept of a God is something I simply can not agree with.

At the time this was a 'gut' feeling. I didn't know why, but I just could not believe in a supreme being. So I needed to find answers elsewhere.

Instead of looking to other religions I chose to look within myself using a simple technique I learned at school:

Lay on your back, breathe, and everytime you breath out, concentrate on a part of your body and make it feel heavier.

Time seems to disappear after a while and the first time I experienced(only ones at school) 45 minutes went by in what seemed like 5 minutes to me.

I'll not write down the whole process here

(you can read my other thread for that: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Close-Believ...m-t207691.html).

At the end, whether this was because I reached some sort of higher mental level or because I was simply able to be relaxed enough to look at things objectivly without preconceptions, I found in essense there is no meaning of life and reality is sooo simple that it is very hard to 'see'. Yet it is very beautifull in it's simplicity.

Short conclusion of what I found: Everything that is, will always be and has always been. Only the form of existance changes not existance itself.

Simple trick to see it: place a dot on a piece of paper. This is now.

From the dot, draw a line into the future and ask yourself how long that line will be. My line extends into infinity because there is no reason to belief there is an end.

Now draw a line from the dot in the opposite direction (into the past) and ask yourself the same question again.

I see no reason why this line should stop (have a begining). It also extends into infinity. This is the core of my belief.

No beginning and no end.

Everything became clear and because of conversations about religion, which I enjoy, there was a need to put a name to it and atheism best fit the description.

No need for me to look on for anything else. I had found my truth and I got better at explaining it to people, finding my own examples and 'stories' to strengthen my case.

I got people thinking about it and that is something I enjoy doing. Not shaking their belief, but having them more objectivly look at it.

In the end a few good friends, who still are true Christians, and I came to the conclusion to agree to disagree. There is nothing I can say against a religious experience, not unlike mine, pointing these people into the opposite direction (the excistance of a God).

Why did I choose to NOT believe? I don't know. It is my nature I guess. I could not believe it from the start I was just trying to find something I could believe.

So, all seems to be well. I found my truth, I know what to call myself, I can explain and discuss it without hurting peoples feelings and yet have rather harsh discussions.

Then I went to Thailand and Buddhism came along. It does not shake my belief but the similarities with what I had found on my own and what Buddhism says are amazing. I did not expect to find a 'religion' that has no God. That in it's core dares to say there is no meaning to live.

I can do nothing but explore this and see if they have something to tell that needs to be investigated more. When someone finds people thinking as he does, what else can one do but research this?

I actually don't like it, because it would mean I would have to say I am religious afterall. I always thought there where but a handfull of people that at least understood, let alone agreed with me. And now after reading about Buddhism it seems I got a whole freaking religion behind me. This is bound to meet some resistance in my head and my first reaction is to find something in Buddhism I can disagree with so I can keep saying I am an atheist.

But this seems to be a hard thing to do. As far as I can currently see, I simply agree with a very very large part of Buddhism. Probebly enough to actually call myself one.

So in short: I allready know what I belief, the only question is do I call it atheism or Buddhism?

Edited September 7, 2008 by Radius