Reincarnation

[eggomaniac]

Is belief in reincarnation a 'requirement' for being a Buddhist? Also, are the Brahmans firm believers in reincarnation?

[For example, it can be clearly stated that belief in reincarnation is a 'disqualifier' for being a Christian, unless there is some obscure Christian sect that adheres to the belief.]

There are about 20 sects of Bhuddism world wide, right; and 2 in Thailand?

Do all or some of them teach reincarnation? Are there any sects that believe we have one life on earth?

[Brucenkhamen]

Buddhism teaches rebirth rather than reincarnation, the difference as I understand it is that the with the latter you have a soul that gets popped back into a new body, with the former you have no soul however through the causes and conditions of your life when you die a new life arises.

It isn't necessary to believe it and Buddhism is just as applicable whether there is one life or multiple lives, Buddhism is about cessation of suffering through a right understanding of your experience and you can observe this working in this life. It's worth it just for that. Buddhism is not a set of beliefs that you swear allegiance to it's a methodology of awakening.

It's quite common for western Buddhists to be agnostic or sceptical about the teachings on rebirth, here's an article for you http://www.tricycle.com/feature/rebirth-a-...ist-agnosticism

However there isn't really much difference in Buddhist schools as they all acknowledge rebirth as part of the teaching, maybe it's less emphasised in Zen.

So as the Thais say, up to you.

[eggomaniac]

Buddhism teaches rebirth rather than reincarnation, the difference as I understand it is that the with the latter you have a soul that gets popped back into a new body, with the former you have no soul however through the causes and conditions of your life when you die a new life arises.

It isn't necessary to believe it and Buddhism is just as applicable whether there is one life or multiple lives, Buddhism is about cessation of suffering through a right understanding of your experience and you can observe this working in this life. It's worth it just for that. Buddhism is not a set of beliefs that you swear allegiance to it's a methodology of awakening.

It's quite common for western Buddhists to be agnostic or sceptical about the teachings on rebirth, here's an article for you http://www.tricycle.com/feature/rebirth-a-...ist-agnosticism

However there isn't really much difference in Buddhist schools as they all acknowledge rebirth as part of the teaching, maybe it's less emphasised in Zen.

So as the Thais say, up to you.

It's going to take some more reading for me to comprehend the difference between reincarnation and rebirth and it's a bit of a shock to learn Buddhism doesn't believe in reincarnation.

Is the movie about the Dalai Llama all Hollywood then? They show a little boy who knew all about the personal belongings of the person he was in a previous life.

I am confused on the difference between rebirth and reincarnation, well give me time this is the first I ever heard of it, but, at least Tibetan Buddhism, seems to lean towards reincarnation, not rebirth, as the same person 'gets popped back into a new body'.

hmmm Buddhists have 'no souls'?, this IS news, very interesting, but you get life after you die?

I thought it was so simple, that they believed in reincarantion and you had spend several lives on earth!? maybe I am confused with Hinduism.

[sabaijai]

Tantric/Vajrayana/Tibetan Buddhism (such as that practised by the Dalai Lama) believe in reincarnation. Theravada Buddhism as expounded in the Pali Canon does not. Discerning the difference using 'rebirth' vs 'reincarnation' is difficult since 'rebirth' connotes being born again, and something has to be born.

The difference was once explained to me that rebirth in Theravada refers to the continuation of a process (ignorance leads to birth, birth leads to death and ignorance keeps the cycle going) while reincarnation in Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, etc refers to the same soul being born in successive bodies.

A common analogy is taking one lit candle, as it burns down, and lighting a new candle. Is it the same flame or a different flame? It's the same with respect to the initial causes (ignition) but different with respect to the conditions (wax, wick material).

eggomaniac, do a search in this forum for 'reincarnation' and 'rebirth,' and I think you'll come up with a few lengthy discussions on this topic.

[rockyysdt]

Further to what the others have written, the Buddha taught that we are "impermanent & conditioned" & that there is nothing inside which can be reincarnated.

Basically eggomatic is a construct of his genes & environment.

Eggomatic will expire upon death but his or her essence, shaped by past khamma, will give rise to rebirth, with an endless cycle of rebirth, until khamma is expended and/or enlightenment takes place.

What becomes enlightened we don't know.

I was also taken aback when l learned of rebirth rather than reincarnation.

Let's just say, there's more to it than we could ever understand or explain other than, we'll only ever know through personal experience.

Edited March 10, 2010 by rockyysdt

[eggomaniac]

Tantric/Vajrayana/Tibetan Buddhism (such as that practised by the Dalai Lama) believe in reincarnation. Theravada Buddhism as expounded in the Pali Canon does not. Discerning the difference using 'rebirth' vs 'reincarnation' is difficult since 'rebirth' connotes being born again, and something has to be born.

The difference was once explained to me that rebirth in Theravada refers to the continuation of a process (ignorance leads to birth, birth leads to death and ignorance keeps the cycle going) while reincarnation in Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, etc refers to the same soul being born in successive bodies.

A common analogy is taking one lit candle, as it burns down, and lighting a new candle. Is it the same flame or a different flame? It's the same with respect to the initial causes (ignition) but different with respect to the conditions (wax, wick material).

eggomaniac, do a search in this forum for 'reincarnation' and 'rebirth,' and I think you'll come up with a few lengthy discussions on this topic.

I guess I have a good reason for why I did not research 'rebirth'. Up until now I didn't know it exsisted. Only thinking Buddhists believed in reincarnation I posed a question on that. The concept of rebirth was a big surprise.

I'm glad it's just not me that finds it 'difficult to understand'.

To clarify, the common analogy about the candle is for reincarnation, right, I hope? If you clarify the candle analogy was describing rebirth, then I really and fully will be confused.

[one life, one soul heaven or hel_l is ez to comprehend and reincarnation isn't that difficult, this rebirth thing will be an interstting challenge] Buddhists have no souls? I have to look that up, too. Okay, it's been one day and 3 paragraphs, but an analogy for 'rebirth' is forming in my intellect.

Using the candle analogy, for rebith, there is no candle, right? There is wax, cotton a spark but they don't come together until someone reaches enlightenment, then it is a candle that does not burn down? Before all that, we are bubbling ignorance with no identity and/or soul.

<<< Come to think of it, that makes a lot of sense. All you have to do is look at human history and our collective endeavors to prove we are all a bunch of mindless wisps, huh?

I don't mean that sarcastically or facetiously. The proof is the pudding; there have been very many tasty raisins.

It's not just the present and past mess in Thailand where you can find proof we are a patheic species. I mean developing our whole lives to be dependant and interconnected to a monetary system might have been lowly, but acceptable. However, having created a completely flawed and broken economic system that ties us all from birth and that destroys lives is a good exampke bubbling ignorance, alright, no burning candles in that room.

[eggomaniac]

I find the information that has come up 'interesting' and it will take weeks, or months, perhaps years, maybe even life times for to study them.

However, let me rephrase the original question.

In the sense we can say, unequivocally, that a person cannot claim to be a Christian, or probably a Jew, Muslim, or B'hai either and, also, say they believe in reincarnation.

Conversely, if someone believes we are individually created beings, with one life on earth to test our worth, would that belief concept preclude one from claiming to be Buddhist, as they, depending on the sect teach reincarnation or rebirth. Is there a sect that believes in one life, one soul? One Poster said it's 'up to you'. Is there an 'up to you' sect on this issue?

I am also still curious about Brahmans stance on this. I am totally guessing they in the reincarnation camp?

-----------

All of my life I have believed in one life, one chance on earth, but for the past few years have had some pervading thoughts about a past life. This is why I want to know more about reincarnation.

Does the second biggest branch of Buddhism, mostly in the South, [what is is called mayahism?] do they teach reincarnation or rebirth?

[sleepyjohn]

Egoomaniac

on further investigation you may start to see there never really was a you existing in the first place......so rebirth really becomes moot. I see the (natural) interest in it as a form of clinging which we'd be best without.

As a friend of mine once said: "You don't think you're alive do you?"

John

[eggomaniac]

Egoomaniac

on further investigation you may start to see there never really was a you existing in the first place......so rebirth really becomes moot. I see the (natural) interest in it as a form of clinging which we'd be best without.

As a friend of mine once said: "You don't think you're alive do you?"

John

John,

Thanks for rekindling memories of of conversations with grade school buddies. good chuckle. I understand your concept, I am only a figment of your imagination, which is only a dream.

----------

EDIt > actually it's very kismetic you brought this subject up. A few days ago I started a the outline for an essay on the creation of Existence, and the various logical options, not to be confused with my Ice Pond theory of the creation of the universe. One of options which would have to be considered was, as you say, that there is no existence, but who would one argue that point with? huh?

One option I came up with, which has probably never been thought of before, is the blue print option, that everything is just 'plans' for the possible creation of existence.

The Eternal option is that existence is, always was and always will be.

The Temporal option is there was nothing and existence was created out of nothing, maybe in correlation with a the bing bang, the threads theory or the wotever theory of the creation of the universe. [tut tut STOP I know it's string theory]

Each of the Eternal and Temporal Options can have sub options, the will existence ever cease? option.

I don't really consider your post to off the Topic, it might deserve a Thread of its own though, as the concepts, while pertaining to Buddhism, refer to mysteries that be pertinent to any religion.

Do you know if Brahmans believe in reincarnation???

Don't tell me if you don't think they don't exist, tell them. HUH?

Edited March 10, 2010 by eggomaniac

[Brucenkhamen]

All Buddhist sects have rebirth as part of their teachings however different people understand it differently, this is just part and parcel of being involved in a practice that encourages freethinking and enquiry rather than a slavish obedience to doctrine.

For example as already mentioned the Theravadin scriptures point to an understanding along the lines of the candle metaphor, despite this it's a prevalent part of SE Asian cultures to understand it more along the lines of a Hindu reincarnation. This is because it's a part of their culture and upbringing and people develop a Sunday school level of understanding, but those who have practiced or studied deeply are more likely to have an understanding closer to the original teaching.

The differences are subtle, and westerners don't have this cultural baggage, we have different cultural baggage.

Camerata might be right in the Tibetan doctrine is more along the lines or reincarnation, I don't think the idea of seeking out famous teachers who have been reborn necessarily proves that.

Buddhist practice is very much about being fully present to the present moment and quitting worrying about the past or future as the present moment is where you can make a change, so from that perspective any teaching on rebirth is secondary as it's your present life where the work is to be done.

[elcent]

// Off-topic Christian proselytizing videos deleted. Don't post any more.

Edited March 12, 2010 by camerata

[eggomaniac]

All Buddhist sects have rebirth as part of their teachings however different people understand it differently, .....

For example as already mentioned the Theravadin scriptures point to an understanding along the lines of the candle metaphor,....

Buddhist practice is very much about being fully present to the present moment and quitting worrying about the past or future as the present moment is where you can make a change, so from that perspective any teaching on rebirth is secondary as it's your present life where the work is to be done.

When Sabaijai mentioned the candle analogy, I 'thought' he was attempting to describe the concept of reincarnation. Just on being so unenlightened to be concerned about grammar, you seem to be relating the candles to rebirth, not reincarnation?

I did find a very good analogy for rebirth. Someone described it as dominoes. All the dominoes are different, but the actions of one falling over affects the next one. I then thought of a domino, that by great meditation and enlightenment, living in the present and all that stuff, turns itself into a chess piece and jumps out of the way of getting knocked over.

From all I have read, so far, on the concept of Buddhist 'rebirth', it actually correlates in a very similar way to the beliefs of born again Christians. Of course the being reborn part is way different, but the stuff leading up to it, or if you don't find rebirth, the results are very similar. In both cases we are all inconsequential bubbling ignorance. It's like if we don't find life in Jesus or enlightenment in Buddha, we essentially add up to being a waste of skin.

[fabianfred]

To the original question..... Theravada Buddhism (of which there is only one sect in Thailand...the two you are thinking of are only a matter for monks, not laypeople) believes in the basic tenets of rebirth and karma.

These are intertwined and inseperable...you cannot believe in one without the other....and to call oneself a Buddhist and also claim you don't believe in either, means that one is simply fooling oneself.

As has been said the Hindu and Brahmin religions believe in reincarnation..... whereas Buddhism believes in rebirth..... it sounds like just a play on words but isn't.

Many people misunderstand the no-self, non-self thing and believe that it means there is no self at all. What it actually means is that there is no permanent unchanging self (like a soul). The body is of course subject to the law of impermanence and is constantly changing every second. The essential us.... the spirit if you like...is also changing every second....learning new lessons, getting new experiences, creating new karma. Rebirth in different existences and realms is caused by karma....we are different in each existence just as we are different now from when we were younger.

BUT...although each existence is different and we are changing constantly...there is a subtle connection...a subtle continuum which connects all our existences together.

Otherwise we couldn't talk about past lives...or future suffering/pleasure caused by accumulated negative/positive karma.....

The candle anology is usually expressed as if there is a long line of candles stretching into the distance..... some candles are fat, some thin, some yellow, white, black, scented with incense, etc. ..all are different (like our bodies in each existence)... the flame lighting the present candle is not the same flame as existed before and which lit the past candles...but there is a subtle connection....without past candles being lit the flame wouldn't continue from each successive candle to arrive at the present one....without the present one the future candles will not get lit (life).

Reaching nirvana we have stopped producing any more karma so there will be no more candles in the line ..and the flame extinguishes.

This does NOT mean that nirvana means the end of existence..... Buddhas and Arahants continue to exist...but their manner of existence is incomprehensible to us who have not got there too.

[Brucenkhamen]

That's a good explanation Fred.

[phetaroi]

To the original question..... Theravada Buddhism (of which there is only one sect in Thailand...the two you are thinking of are only a matter for monks, not laypeople) believes in the basic tenets of rebirth and karma.

These are intertwined and inseperable...you cannot believe in one without the other....and to call oneself a Buddhist and also claim you don't believe in either, means that one is simply fooling oneself.

I haven't decided what I believe yet, so this is not about one position or the other. But your statement is a totally dogmatic and truly religious (rather than philosophical) viewpoint. It's a you must believe this command, rather than a personal journey.

[eggomaniac]

To the original question..... Theravada Buddhism (of which there is only one sect in Thailand...the two you are thinking of are only a matter for monks, not laypeople) believes in the basic tenets of rebirth and karma.

These are intertwined and inseperable...you cannot believe in one without the other....and to call oneself a Buddhist and also claim you don't believe in either, means that one is simply fooling oneself.

As has been said the Hindu and Brahman religions believe in reincarnation..... whereas Buddhism believes in rebirth..... it sounds like just a play on words but isn't.

Many people misunderstand the no-self, non-self thing and believe that it means there is no self at all. What it actually means is that there is no permanent unchanging self (like a soul). The body is of course subject to the law of impermanence and is constantly changing every second. The essential us.... the spirit if you like...is also changing every second....learning new lessons, getting new experiences, creating new karma. Rebirth in different existences and realms is caused by karma....we are different in each existence just as we are different now from when we were younger.

BUT...although each existence is different and we are changing constantly...there is a subtle connection...a subtle continuum which connects all our existences together.

Otherwise we couldn't talk about past lives...or future suffering/pleasure caused by accumulated negative/positive karma.....

The candle analogy is usually expressed as if there is a long line of candles stretching into the distance..... some candles are fat, some thin, some yellow, white, black, scented with incense, etc. ..all are different (like our bodies in each existence)... the flame lighting the present candle is not the same flame as existed before and which lit the past candles...but there is a subtle connection....without past candles being lit the flame wouldn't continue from each successive candle to arrive at the present one....without the present one the future candles will not get lit (life).

Reaching nirvana we have stopped producing any more karma so there will be no more candles in the line ..and the flame extinguishes.

This does NOT mean that nirvana means the end of existence..... Buddhas and Abrahan's continue to exist...but their manner of existence is incomprehensible to us who have not got there too.

I really appreciate your well measured answer and you seem to clicked into my level of understanding of these issues and made it easy to understand. The one line you used 'or talk about past lives' was a jolt, though. Just when I'm beginning to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth there was that reference to reincarnation?

Without saying if I believe in it, I can now conclude that the concept of rebirth is very similar to the concept of the born again Christians, with different remedies for salvation, though.

To start off with, in both religions, we are a very insignificant sub species of bubbling ignorance and a total waste of the resources of the time space continuum. Each has a way to escape from the 'squalid situation'. yikes an accurate description sounds, so, rude? sorry for that, can't think of a way to butter coat it - no analogies this time

In Buddhism, it takes a super human combination of an austere lifestyle, knowledge of not knowledge and expert meditation for redemption. With born again Christians, it's accepting Christ into one's life, which ensures a hand up.

Like I say, I am not saying I believe in either one, however I find it historically and culturally very interesting that they both describe the very same bleak meaning, or lack of, of our lives, and they both have tickets, different tickets yes, but tickets none the less, to find nirvana or heaven.

Another strong similarity, is they both profess that a very small per cent of the population will attain to encounter the solution.

[Brucenkhamen]

Without saying if I believe in it, I can now conclude that the concept of rebirth is very similar to the concept of the born again Christians, with different remedies for salvation, though.

If that's the case then you totally misunderstand. In Christianity being born again (ie accepting Christ as your saviour) is desirable and what one is supposed to de to be a Christian (at least in those churches that teach this way).

In Buddhism rebirth is a just fact of life, like death and taxes, if anything it's undesirable and the point of Buddhism is to break free of this continual process through enlightenment.

So the only similarity is the labels we give them; the terms rebirth and born again sound like might mean the same thing.

Though I suppose one could say that John 3:16 is evidence that Jesus also believed i rebirth I think no Christian church would back one up on this.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Brucenkhamen

[fabianfred]

To the original question..... Theravada Buddhism (of which there is only one sect in Thailand...the two you are thinking of are only a matter for monks, not laypeople) believes in the basic tenets of rebirth and karma.

These are intertwined and inseperable...you cannot believe in one without the other....and to call oneself a Buddhist and also claim you don't believe in either, means that one is simply fooling oneself.

I haven't decided what I believe yet, so this is not about one position or the other. But your statement is a totally dogmatic and truly religious (rather than philosophical) viewpoint. It's a you must believe this command, rather than a personal journey.

sorry if it comes across in that way...... but the Buddha taught about karma and rebirth and gave examples from his past lives.... So if i do not believe the Buddha and have no faith in his teaching of the Dhamma then how can i be a follower of his?

To become a Buddhist one only has to say the lines.... Buddham Saranang Gaccami.. I take refuge in the Buddha...etc.etc....

and one of the requirements to reach Stream-entry is to have an unshakeable belief in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.... meaning no doubts..... one could not be caused to doubt by some clever person who is good at pushing his beliefs...one has complete confidence in the truth of the Buddha and the Dhamma.

[eggomaniac]

Without saying if I believe in it, I can now conclude that the concept of rebirth is very similar to the concept of the born again Christians, with different remedies for salvation, though.

In Buddhism rebirth is a just fact of life, like death and taxes, if anything it's undesirable and the point of Buddhism is to break free of this continual process through enlightenment.

Bruce,

I did try to make it clear the tickets are different, why belabour that point? You have reiterated the logic. 'breaking free of this continual process'.

Do you understand what observation I am making? You just reinforced it.

Any Buddhists would say, let's see analogies don't work, proper statements don't work, how can one say this? ,... there is a 'we are NOT there itness' involved in the human condition. Any Christian, also, would say there is 'we are not there itnness', They BOTH say we are NOT there!

They both have, not the same, teachings, a formula, on how to get there. If you really, really want to be frank, not politically correct, but honest, you could correctly say they both consider humans to be &lt;deleted&gt; with a brain on top. They BOTH claim that is all we can ever amount to, if we don't find their prescribed recipe for enlightement or salvation.

If all I can use is West Coast logger vocabulary to state this, it does not mean it is not the same things the flowery and poetic holy books say. Some would say I am being disrespctful, but I am only saying what they are saying in a paraphrasing matter.

I'm saying the same thing they are in my own vernacular.

--------

What if they are both wrong, on the point we are so insignificant? Maybe we are special gifts and sacred creations, elevated above the ignorance at our REAL birth, to start with. Maybe we are not so hopelessly ignorant as they make out. maybe.

Maybe we squander away our 'gifts' and maybe we have the chance to increase our 'worth', but what if we are okay to begin with?

[eggomaniac]

To the original question..... Theravada Buddhism (of which there is only one sect in Thailand...

This is not a big deal, it would be called 'point of order' at a business meeting.

Wikipedia don't cringe yet claims there two sects of Buddhism, Theravadan and Mahayan. The following link claims there are 4, including, Burmese and Ceylon as well.

Unlike Wikipedia the, in my opinion, well written article clarifies that, for all intentions and purposes, Theravada is the only one that is prevalent and not obscure.

I found out the one I am most intersted in Mahayan, is divided into the East Asian branch and the Tibetan branch. As the Tibetans believe in reincrnation and are of the same sect as East Asian, Mahayanism, I going to deduct that Thai Buddhist Mayhayan Buddhism probably does too.

As I just found out their main territory was in the South, Surat Thani to Nakhon Si Thammarat, the hairs stood up the back of my neck. This is where my main connection with Thailand is and where my interest began.

Who knows, Maybe I was a Mayahan Buddhist monk in my last life? I will have to find out if there was any highly controversial and outspoken monk, with outlandish theories, who passed in 1949, with enough 'credits' to be born in Canada, instead of Thailand.

next thread, is humor allowed in Buddhism?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...a/wheel085.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism

[phetaroi]

...and one of the requirements to reach Stream-entry is to have an unshakeable belief in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.... meaning no doubts."

Thank you. I couldn't have written a better definition of the word "faith".

[fabianfred]

This is not intended to be a pissing contest to see who is right or wrong...we are all giving our opinions....and others are free to pick and choose and create their own... lets not get personal in this thing.

I am merely trying to air my views like the rest of you...not claim to be enlightened or anything silly like that.

Please understand that much material by Thai teachers is only available to those able to read Thai...so i have a certain advantage over other readers in that respect.

Edited March 13, 2010 by fabianfred

[rockyysdt]

I found out the one I am most intersted in Mahayan, is divided into the East Asian branch and the Tibetan branch. As the Tibetans believe in reincrnation and are of the same sect as East Asian, Mahayanism, I going to deduct that Thai Buddhist Mayhayan Buddhism probably does too.

As I just found out their main territory was in the South, Surat Thani to Nakhon Si Thammarat, the hairs stood up the back of my neck. This is where my main connection with Thailand is and where my interest began.

Who knows, Maybe I was a Mayahan Buddhist monk in my last life? I will have to find out if there was any highly controversial and outspoken monk, with outlandish theories, who passed in 1949, with enough 'credits' to be born in Canada, instead of Thailand.

next thread, is humor allowed in Buddhism?

Hi EM.

I was just interested in your preference to Mahayan Buddhism.

Is this partially due to Mahayan's leaning towards reincarnation over rebirth?

Up until a year or two I new nothing of rebirth & due to my aversion of eternal death l liked the idea of reincarnation.

I now feel that, in terms of my current conditioned & impermanent state, reincarnation is no different to permanent death as I have no consciousness of past lives.

I also suspect grasping to the notion of reincarnation may anchor me to my ego, something which could hinder letting go of the self in order to achieve a state of no self.

Edited March 13, 2010 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I haven't decided what I believe yet.

Hi P.

I thought Buddhism was about practice (Dhamma) in order to achieve personal experience, rather than belief.

By practicing Mindfulness, Silent Sitting, observing precepts, & exercising loving kindness the Buddha has indicated one will yield personal experience & be able to answer their own questions.

If one doesn't practice, but becomes attached to belief in well presented argument, or belief in things which mirror ones current beliefs then isn't this just another religion?

[fabianfred]

I think there is always going to be a certain amount of belief...at first, when toying with a new and strange concept. but practice should confirm it into wisdom and knowledge.

A monk has three duties...to study, practice and teach the Dhamma. If he only studies and teaches he is not using practice to confirm the truth of what he has studied and could be passing on rubbish.

[phetaroi]

I haven't decided what I believe yet.

Hi P.

I thought Buddhism was about practice (Dhamma) in order to achieve personal experience, rather than belief.

By practicing Mindfulness, Silent Sitting, observing precepts, & exercising loving kindness the Buddha has indicated one will yield personal experience & be able to answer their own questions.

If one doesn't practice, but becomes attached to belief in well presented argument, or belief in things which mirror ones current beliefs then isn't this just another religion?

I agree with you in regard to Buddhism being about practice leading to various experiences...although I think that naturally that leads to certain beliefs. Where I differ with some posters here who tell us what Buddhism "is", is that (1) they are confusing personal views/opinions/beliefs with what some of us are choosing to call "universal truths". For example, the "there is only one ultimate truth and I know it" school. Don't misunderstand me here...there is nothing wrong with one having his own personal beliefs...and that to me is most probably faith.

Let me put it to you this way.

Bill is a serious minded guy.

One day he tells me that he has entered nirvanna and he has learned that x, y, and z.

Now, how do I know he has actually entered nirvanna? Just because he says so? How do I know he is an arahant? Maybe he has/is. Or maybe he is delusional. Or a fake. Or has simply misinterpreted an experience.

I cannot know if there is such a thing as nirvanna until I personally experience it.

Until I personally experience it, I can still have an opinion about it.

I wonder if (to mix religious metaphors) the best Buddhist is a doubting Thomas?

[phetaroi]

I think there is always going to be a certain amount of belief...at first, when toying with a new and strange concept. but practice should confirm it into wisdom and knowledge.

A monk has three duties...to study, practice and teach the Dhamma. If he only studies and teaches he is not using practice to confirm the truth of what he has studied and could be passing on rubbish.

I think you make a very good point here. Where I see a concern is that humans are notorious for misinterpreting reality.

[rockyysdt]

I agree with you in regard to Buddhism being about practice leading to various experiences...although I think that naturally that leads to certain beliefs. Where I differ with some posters here who tell us what Buddhism "is", is that (1) they are confusing personal views/opinions/beliefs with what some of us are choosing to call "universal truths". For example, the "there is only one ultimate truth and I know it" school. Don't misunderstand me here...there is nothing wrong with one having his own personal beliefs...and that to me is most probably faith.

I'm not sure what you mean by "school".

I'd imagine it depends on the curriculum & content.

Let me put it to you this way.

Bill is a serious minded guy.

One day he tells me that he has entered nirvanna and he has learned that x, y, and z.

Now, how do I know he has actually entered nirvanna? Just because he says so? How do I know he is an arahant? Maybe he has/is. Or maybe he is delusional. Or a fake. Or has simply misinterpreted an experience.

I cannot know if there is such a thing as nirvanna until I personally experience it.

Until I personally experience it, I can still have an opinion about it.

Whether they are actually Arahant or not is unimportant but can be encouraging & inspirational.

I wonder if (to mix religious metaphors) the best Buddhist is a doubting Thomas?

Or maybe view things in a neutral manner without attachment.

I view practice as the core of being Buddhist.

Without practice I become a coffee table Buddhist.

[LazyYogi]

Tantric/Vajrayana/Tibetan Buddhism (such as that practised by the Dalai Lama) believe in reincarnation. Theravada Buddhism as expounded in the Pali Canon does not. Discerning the difference using 'rebirth' vs 'reincarnation' is difficult since 'rebirth' connotes being born again, and something has to be born.

The difference was once explained to me that rebirth in Theravada refers to the continuation of a process (ignorance leads to birth, birth leads to death and ignorance keeps the cycle going) while reincarnation in Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, etc refers to the same soul being born in successive bodies.

A common analogy is taking one lit candle, as it burns down, and lighting a new candle. Is it the same flame or a different flame? It's the same with respect to the initial causes (ignition) but different with respect to the conditions (wax, wick material).

eggomaniac, do a search in this forum for 'reincarnation' and 'rebirth,' and I think you'll come up with a few lengthy discussions on this topic.

I'm sorry, but you are totally wrong here in regards to Tibetan Buddhism. ALL Buddhists sects, schools, etc. teach rebirth. Tibetan/ Vajrayana/ Mahayana do not teach that there is a soul.

Unfortunately your mistaken statements on Tibetan or Mahayana doctrine has led to a mass chain of confusion in the other posters on this thread.

Let me clarify. Every system of teachings that can legitimately claim to be "Buddhist" agrees on three characteristics:

1: All conditioned things are impermanent

2: All conditioned things are ultimately unsatisfactory, or a source of suffering

3: All phenomena are not-self

There is no room for the existence of an unchanging, eternal "soul" that continues from life to life. Everything is a process of cause and effect.

In the Tibetan tradition, highly advanced meditation masters are aware of, and have some control over, this process of cause and effect that will lead a stream of consciousness to flow through the death of one being to the birth of another. The mastery of this process has led to the tradition of recognizing the rebirths of prominent teachers. But it is still a process totally based in emptiness. There is no permanent entity that transmigrates, as there is in Hinduism.

[phetaroi]

I agree with you in regard to Buddhism being about practice leading to various experiences...although I think that naturally that leads to certain beliefs. Where I differ with some posters here who tell us what Buddhism "is", is that (1) they are confusing personal views/opinions/beliefs with what some of us are choosing to call "universal truths". For example, the "there is only one ultimate truth and I know it" school. Don't misunderstand me here...there is nothing wrong with one having his own personal beliefs...and that to me is most probably faith.

I'm not sure what you mean by "school".

I'd imagine it depends on the curriculum & content.

Let me put it to you this way.

Bill is a serious minded guy.

One day he tells me that he has entered nirvanna and he has learned that x, y, and z.

Now, how do I know he has actually entered nirvanna? Just because he says so? How do I know he is an arahant? Maybe he has/is. Or maybe he is delusional. Or a fake. Or has simply misinterpreted an experience.

I cannot know if there is such a thing as nirvanna until I personally experience it.

Until I personally experience it, I can still have an opinion about it.

Whether they are actually Arahant or not is unimportant but can be encouraging & inspirational.

I wonder if (to mix religious metaphors) the best Buddhist is a doubting Thomas?

Or maybe view things in a neutral manner without attachment.

I view practice as the core of being Buddhist.

Without practice I become a coffee table Buddhist.

I'm sorry for not being clear. I was using a secondary definition of "school", as in "A group of people distinguished by similar manners, customs, or opinions." Not a formal school. A school of thought.

Yes, I agree, many people can be inspirational and encouraging.

A "coffee table Buddhist"...interesting.