Buddhism loses all purpose if you don't believe in reincarna

[Malcolm]

I see no need to introduce a concept of multiple lives beyond that which can be experienced.

Buddha found it important, indeed his realization was predicated on it.

Can you please give me a couple of sources that illustrate this importance?

Best wishes
Kc

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans."

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[Challenge23]

I have been thinking about this subject recently. First of all, lets assume that there is no literal reincarnation as some Buddhists seem to believe, mainly here in the west. (This is not meant being insulting, but it is merely a personal observation.) Anyway, if there was no literal reincarnation as the Tathagatha taught, there would be no need to practice dharma, or even to try and be a good person at all! You could be the most amoral, egoistical madman who deceives everyone, earns a huge fortune and fame through dishonest means, and treats everyone badly without ever having to take responsibility for it, given that you are "lucky" enough. After death, you would just cease to exist like everyone else, including good people. You would not need to worry about being born in the lower realms, as your accumulated bad karma would simply disappear with your consciousness at the time of death.

Furthermore, by this logic a monk who retreated from a secular life to a monastery would be just wasting his time, as achieving enlightenment would become a pointless task given that there would be nothing to be liberated of, and no boddhisattva path to follow during countless lifetimes. He could just be out there accumulating worldy possessions like everyone else. In this case, even though it would be a very laudable thing to try and stay morally pure and compassionate, it would make no difference in the end. Renunciation would become a silly thing, and the only point of practicing meditation would be be to improve things like concentration and mindfullness in order to better pursuit materalistic tendencies.

.

I agree up to a point.

I think that in order to do some of the more intense practices you do need to be pretty strongly convinced of rebirth in the literal sense. If you think that consciousness ends when the brain stops functioning then spending three years in retreat for example would seem like a terribly bad idea as would any practice involving favorable future lives.

On the other hand, being nice to people, giving small amounts to charity, having basic ethics and a laid back view about material possessions, etc. does give a pretty immediate and verifiable payback. Even though some people can get away with being evil doesn't mean that everyone(or even most people) can get away with it.

Without believing in rebirth you would end up with an extremely pared down version of Buddhism that arguably is barely even Buddhism. Examples of this can be seen in the body of work by Stephen Batchelor or Sam Harris.

[tlee]

If you could talk about how the reward from practicing Dharma even without believing in rebirth is greater than the reward from indulging in sensual pleasures, I will listen. But I am not going through all of that. There is no need to remove attachment to self because at death self will be removed.

Even with death the identification with a self is painful.
It doesn't take much meditation and application of the teachings on selflessness before this becomes irreversibly understood.

The view of a self is like rose colored glasses. At first it might seem novel, but you lose all the other colors and it becomes restrictive in that it keeps you from discerning one colored object from another and rose colored things appear white. The view of a self is like that because you lose huge chunks of mental ability fitting into the framework of a self, that framework is what pain, loss, fear, etc. require to exist, and it keeps you from making objective decisions or opinions.

[Kaccāni]

[...]
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

So this is a sermon that is obviously directed at an audience that still believes in a concept of soul, attempting to illustrate to them the principle of emergence, arguably for the purpose of getting beyond the "beginning" that initiates craving.

I still do not see how that proves that Buddhism loses all purpose if one does not believe in reincarnation.

Best wishes
Kc

[Sherlock]

Please read the account of the Buddha's awakening.

His awakening was based on remembering all his past lives and understanding dependent origination and the four noble truths.

[Malcolm]

So this is a sermon that is obviously directed at an audience that still believes in a concept of soul, attempting to illustrate to them the principle of emergence, arguably for the purpose of getting beyond the "beginning" that initiates craving.

No, this is not a sūtra directed at monks who still believe in a soul or an atman. This is a sūtra directed at monks who understand that there is no person to be found in the five aggregates.

The Buddha defined the four types of awakened person by virtue of the number of lifetimes it would take before they entered nirvana, for example, it would take a stream entrant to attain nirvana (seven), arhats achieve nirvana in this lifetime.

Stream entrants by definition are free from the fetter of believing in a self or an atman.

You really need to study harder.

[Kaccāni]

I have an understanding of that. I simply refuse the soul-like notion that has apparently been introduced in this thread. Prior existences facilitated that which is easy for me now, and did not set the stage for that which is difficult for me now. That concerns all aspects of existence. Biology, cognition, knowledge, conditioning, culture, etc. That which led to me being that which I appear to be now. That is not possible with just one instance of life. It needs the whole evolution before it to emerge in the form it is now, physically and mentally. So of course, something unfolds in me that has been started long ago, and existed in different and similar forms, and expresses in the particular form now in me. Without Buddha and the subsequente evolution of thoughts based thereupon it would not be as it is. Without a ton of other material I have studied it would not be as it is. Without my growing up in the environment I did it would not be as it is. Without the particular biology I am having it would not be as it is. If you limit the term "reincarnation" to that, happening over and over again, I'm game.

If I see what triggers my fears, and can differ between what is caused by conditioning and what is caused by biology, then I can see which part my past lives have brought by, and which part this life has brought by. If I see what are my talents and what has to be worked for hard, the same applies.

That's still different from the widespred notion of "reincarnation".

Best wishes
Kc

[Malcolm]

I have an understanding of that. I simply refuse the soul-like notion that has apparently been introduced in this thread. \

The Buddha taught rebirth without making recourse to a self that undergoes rebirth.

There are a variety of ways of explaining this, but in essence, the most profound way of understanding this is that the habit of I-making appropriates a new series of aggregates at death, and so it goes on and on until one eradicates the knowledge obscuration that creates this habit of I-making. In the meantime, due to this habit of I-making, one continues to accumulate affliction and karma which results in suffering for infinite lifetimes, just as one has taken rebirth in samsara without a beginning.

But no soul-concept has been introduced in this thread, not at all. The sentient being I was in a past life is not identical with me in this life, even though I suffer and enjoy the results of the negative and positive actions that sentient being and all the other sentient beings engaged in who make up the serial chain of the continuum which I now enjoy. But when I die, all trace of my identity will cease since my identification with my five aggregates as "me" and "mine" is a delusion, and that identity, self, soul, etc., exists merely as a convention and not as an ultimate truth. When the habit of I-making that drives my continuum in samsara takes a new series of aggregates in the next life, it is unlikely I will have any memory of this lifetime, and my habit of I-making will generate a new identity based on the cause and conditions it encounters in the next life.

It is important to understand that this "I" generated by the habit of I-making does not exist and is fundamentally a delusion. But it is a useful delusion, just like the delusion of a car allows us to use one.

An analogy is using the last candle to light the next candle. One cannot say that two flames are different, nor can one say they are identical, but they do exist in a continuum, a discrete series.

[Punya]

But it is a useful delusion, just like the delusion of a car allows us to use one.

In what way is it useful?

[LastLegend]

Continuous causes and effects are what existence is. Without causes and effects, things are considered to not exist. While we live now, we are laying the seeds for the next existence. Liberation is just liberation from attachment to the deep rooted false perception of self, that's all. The rest still remains as is, such. What if there is no cause at all? Then there is no existence, but we do not go anywhere.Where do we go when we are not separate from everything else? Dependent origination.

[muni]

but we do not go anywhere.Where do we go when we are not separate from everything else? Dependent origination.

Okay, I was just packing..

Samsara-nirvana are by same groundless ground. It can be confusing from the “self-basis” to understand reincarnation - Tulkus since titles seem to point to an independence and levels of entities.
Buddha "see" Buddha or Awaken Nature "sees" Awaken Nature( dependence-emptiness) only, other ways there is no Awaken. By this suffering as lost confused state is invited to be "home", out of dream state. That is the only way how I see reincarnation ( Tulkus) and its only purpose, in the continuation of qualities to awaken, to represent our nature or to keep a mirror up. Then up to the practitioner to have respect/trust ( respect for own Nature) if liberation of the self ( cause of suffering) is what is wanted.

Rebirth maybe can be seen as the opportunity to get continuation of guidance.

[Malcolm]

But it is a useful delusion, just like the delusion of a car allows us to use one.

In what way is it useful?

it is useful for eating, drinking, having conversations, procreation etc.

[dzogchungpa]

An analogy is using the last candle to light the next candle. One cannot say that two flames are different, nor can one say they are identical, but they do exist in a continuum, a discrete series.

Well, I don't see why one can't say they are different, and furthermore I don't know what you mean by saying they exist in a continuum. I have never understood why Buddhists like this candle example. The flame of a candle can be used to light any number of other candles, and does not need to become extinguished in the process, so this does not explain the thing that is actually mysterious, at least to me.

[Berry]

Well, I don't see why one can't say they are different, and furthermore I don't know what you mean by saying they exist in a continuum. I have never understood why Buddhists like this candle example. The flame of a candle can be used to light any number of other candles, and does not need to become extinguished in the process, so this does not explain the thing that is actually mysterious, at least to me.

I'm glad its not just me that finds the often repeated candle example really puzzling!

[Malcolm]

An analogy is using the last candle to light the next candle. One cannot say that two flames are different, nor can one say they are identical, but they do exist in a continuum, a discrete series.

Well, I don't see why one can't say they are different, and furthermore I don't know what you mean by saying they exist in a continuum. I have never understood why Buddhists like this candle example. The flame of a candle can be used to light any number of other candles, and does not need to become extinguished in the process, so this does not explain the thing that is actually mysterious, at least to me.

The example comes from Nāgārjuna's Verses on Depdendent Origination:

• Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals,
  fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes.

His Commentary on the Verses of Dependent Origination states:

• Likewise, just as a butter lamp is produced from a butter lamp; the reflection of a mirror produced from a likeness; a seal impression from a seal; fire from a fire crystal; a sprout from a seed, saliva caused by sour fruit and an echo from a sound. Also those can easily be understood to be neither the same nor different.

In any case, consciousness exists in a series of single moments, so unlike a candle flame, it does not give rise to more than one subsequent moment of consciousness in a given series. As Nāgārjuna points out, the aggregates are serially connected. He says:

• Those [aggregates], called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.

M

[Malcolm]

I'm glad its not just me that finds the often repeated candle example really puzzling!

There are eight examples of causes and results being neither the same nor different, for the purpose of educating the obtuse.

[dzogchungpa]

In any case, consciousness exists in a series of single moments, so unlike a candle flame, it does not give rise to more than one subsequent moment of consciousness in a given series. As Nāgārjuna points out, the aggregates are serially connected.

Well, I guess I'm pretty obtuse. What do you mean by "a given series" and "serially connected"?

[Berry]

I'm glad its not just me that finds the often repeated candle example really puzzling!

There are eight examples of causes and results being neither the same nor different, for the purpose of educating the obtuse.

"Educatiing the obtuse?"... could you be implying that I'm stupid, by any chance ?

[dzogchungpa]

I'm glad its not just me that finds the often repeated candle example really puzzling!

There are eight examples of causes and results being neither the same nor different, for the purpose of educating the obtuse.

"Educating the obtuse?"... could you be implying that I'm stupid, by any chance ?

Malcolm's upāya is indeed inconceivable.

[Malcolm]

In any case, consciousness exists in a series of single moments, so unlike a candle flame, it does not give rise to more than one subsequent moment of consciousness in a given series. As Nāgārjuna points out, the aggregates are serially connected.

Well, I guess I'm pretty obtuse. What do you mean by "a given series" and "serially connected"?

"Serially connected" = connected in a series.

A "given series" means an instance of a series.