Reincarnation

Kawabata

Just a (probably) naive question concerning buddhism. It's an worldview that I've been interested in for some time but I've always held back from exploring it further for one reason in particular - reincarnation.

I'm afraid I'm far too tied to a scientific viewpoint to ever accept the reality of reincarnation, no matter what.

My question is whether belief in reincarnation is an essential component of buddhist belief and practice.

Any views gratefully received.

18AD

I'm not a Buddhist so I don't know the ins and outs of how one becomes defined a Buddhist officially. I doubt there'd be a problem. You can always see it as a metaphor as well, maybe reprocessing of physical matter, which does happen.
Maybe someone else can help with your question.


Here's a nice quote:
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
-- Buddha

Good luck.

Goodshape

18AD wrote:

You can always see it as a metaphor as well, maybe reprocessing of physical matter, which does happen.

That's essentially what I take it to mean (although I wouldn't class myself as a 'Buddhist' necessarily either).

Whether or not it's anything more than just that I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be very willing to believe that one person 'returns' as one other person.

It's never really stopped me from enjoying what Buddhists have to say.

18AD

There's one take on it that like matter being rearranged that spirit is rearranged at death as well. So you return to a collective spiritual unconscious and a totally new person emerges from fragments of old.
I believe it stems from Chaos Magick

Goodshape

18AD wrote:

There's one take on it that like matter being rearranged that spirit is rearranged at death as well. So you return to a collective spiritual unconscious and a totally new person emerges from fragments of old.
I believe it stems from Chaos Magick

Interesting. That's pretty much the idea I had. Someone else always thinks of it first

Summed up my thinking in this post a couple of years ago.

...and if you want me, I'll be over in the corner Googling Chaos Magick.

maitri

I think that was actually one of the questions that the Buddha himself never answered:


One day Malunkyaputta came to the Buddha and said: "You have not told us whether the world is eternal or not, whether the soul is the same as the body, or whether the self exists after death. If you can explain these things, I will continue to be a monk, otherwise I shall leave."
The Buddha replied: "Did I promise all these explanations when you first joined us? Or did you stipulate you must know them?"
"No", Malunkyaputta confessed.
"Then listen to me. Suppose a man were wounded by an arrow and when the surgeon arrived, he said to him: "Don't pull this arrow out until I know who shot it, what tree it comes from, who made it, and what kind of bow was used." Certainly the man would die before he discovered the answers. In the same way, if you say you will not be a monk unless I solve all the questions of the world, you are likely to die unsatisfied."
"To be a follower of the truth does not depend on such answers. Whether the world is eternal or transient, there is suffering, and I teach the way to understand it. My teaching does not depend on whether I exist after death or not, because I am concerned with suffering here and now. To all of you I have explained what should be explained and not explained that which is not relevant to the end of suffering and finding happiness."
~Majjhima Nikaya

And:

A wandering monk called Vaccha asked the Buddha if the Buddha would still exist after death. The Buddha replied:
"Vaccha, the idea that I would exist or not exist after death - such ideas lead to dense jungles and arid deserts, to entanglements as though caught by thorns. They bring about anger, delusion and argument and they do not bring about peace, knowledge or wisdom leading to enlightenment. I do not take up any of these ideas"
~Digha Nikaya

But:

"The body in which one can see truth will die out like a fan palm, without any future. But that which is the truth, that which is existence itself, is there although it is deep and infinitly hard to understand. Like the great ocean, one cannot fathom it. And so it does not fit the case to say that I will be reborn or will not be reborn."
~Digha Nikaya

I can't help finding it interesting to speculate about these things, though. Oh, it's late. Good night!

18AD

Some amusing Zen:

Wavy Gravy once asked a Zen Roshi, "What happens after death?"
The Roshi replied, "I don't know."
Wavy protested, "But you're a Zen Master!"
"Yes," the Roshi admitted, "but I'm not a dead Zen Master."

There a many versions of this as I recall.

Asiaprod

Goodshape wrote:

...and if you want me, I'll be over in the corner Googling Chaos Magick.

Will join you there shortly:)

By the way, great thread, and very interesting. In answer to the OP

My question is whether belief in reincarnation is an essential component of buddhist belief and practice.

No, it is not an essential component. What matters is the here and now, and your interaction with it.

Asiaprod

The nice thing about posts here is that it encourages me constantly to research what is being debated.
Today if found this really cool, short Q&A on reincarnation/rebirth. Please enjoy.

What do Buddhists believe?
Different Buddhists believe different things, but the nature of belief is itself an important issue in Buddhism. Belief is to be seen as belief, not as fact. When we see our beliefs as facts, then we are deluding ourselves. When we see our beliefs as beliefs, then we are not. Seeing things in their true light is the most important thing in Buddhism. Deluding ourselves is the cause of much suffering. So Buddhists try to see beliefs as beliefs. They may still believe in certain things - that is their prerogative - but they do not cling to those beliefs; they do not mind or worry about whether their beliefs are true or not, nor do they try to prove that which they know cannot be proved. Ideally though, a Buddhist does not indulge in any kind of belief.

Does Buddhism teach reincarnation?
Reincarnation is not a teaching of the Buddha. In Buddhism the teaching is of rebirth, not of reincarnation.

What is the difference between reincarnation and rebirth?
The reincarnation idea is to believe in a soul or a being, separate from the body. At the death of the physical body, this soul is said to move into another state and then enter a womb to be born again.
Rebirth is different and can be explained in this way. Take away the notion of a soul or a being living inside the body; take away all ideas of self existing either inside or outside the body. Also take away notions of past, present and future; in fact take away all notions of time. Now, without reference to time and self, there can be no before or after, no beginning or ending, no birth or death, no coming or going. Yet there is life! Rebirth is the experience of life in the moment, without birth, without death; it is the experience of life which is neither eternal nor subject to annihilation.

Does that mean there is no such thing as birth and death?
That which is born, dies. Forms come and go. All that comes into existence is impermanent; it is born and it dies. But the very essence of what "I" am -- the Buddha-nature -- is unborn and undying.

Is this just a Buddhist belief?
Buddhists are people and people do believe things, but Buddhism is concerned with truth, not with belief, and the teaching is to see things as they are. If we believe anything which has not been experienced, we should know what we are doing. When we do not understand something, then to maintain an open mind is the healthiest and wisest practice.

But what happens when we die?
If we understand what the word "I" really represents, we can realise the answer to this question. Buddhism does not offer intellectual answers; it only gives directions for the experiencing of truth.

How is it possible to experience truth?
By understanding that "I" and birth and death are notions, concepts, ideas, beliefs. It is the idea of a self living life through time, which produces the idea of birth and death. We have been conditioned into believing that we have come into existence and in due course will cease to exist. If we see through these ideas and realise that this moment neither begins nor ends, we shall realise deathlessness.

But how can getting rid of ideas enables us to see deathlessness?
The deathless is here all the while, but ideas block it out. It is like the sun because of the clouds. But as soon as the clouds are cleared away, there is the sun. Likewise, as soon as ideas are cleared away from the mind, there is the true state of birthlessness and deathlessness.

How does one clear away ideas?
By seeing ideas as ideas and not as truths; by being aware of mental formations through meditation.

Kawabata

Thanks very much folks. I definitely got an answer, and more besides! Best wishes.

DublinWriter

Kawabata wrote:

Thanks very much folks. I definitely got an answer, and more besides! Best wishes.

This should help...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

donaghs

I've heard it said that Glen Hoddle's infamous comments on disabled people and reincarnation are basically close to the views of mainstream Buddhism (and Hinduism). How do people feel about this?

yomchi

donaghs wrote:

I've heard it said that Glen Hoddle's infamous comments on disabled people and reincarnation are basically close to the views of mainstream Buddhism (and Hinduism). How do people feel about this?

That I believe is incorrect, but I'm sure more learned people here could provide a better answer.

Asiaprod

donaghs wrote:

I've heard it said that Glen Hoddle's infamous comments on disabled people and reincarnation are basically close to the views of mainstream Buddhism (and Hinduism). How do people feel about this?

It would help if you were to quote the infamous comments, I could not find it.

donaghs

I found it on Hoddle's wikipedia entry:
"You and I have been physically given two hands and two legs and a half-decent brain. Some people have not been born like that for a reason. The karma is working from another lifetime."

The Dalai Lama himself is supposed to have made this interesting follow-up:
"Glenn Hoddle (the British football manager) caused real problems by saying that the disabled are paying off bad karma. From the Buddhist viewpoint, he is correct. But if you live in a Christian country, you should keep these views to yourself. It is difficult to have a mish-mash of religions. It may be better to remain Christian, but have an understanding of other religions.''
http://web.archive.org/web/20011109134945/http://www.theage.com.au/daily/990525/news/news27.html

Both their views are somewhat disagreeable to me. But the Dalai Lama does make a good point, if we don't force our views on others, and peacefully co-exist, religion need not be such a problem.

Asiaprod

donaghs, the following seeks to explain your question. It make sense to me, but I have been a Buddhist for more than 20 years. Have a read, see what it says to you, and then fire questions back. It is an interesting question that does not seem to get much coverage. I look-forward to debating it.
Asia

By Arvind Sharma
Glenn Hoddle's comments on karma, reincarnation and disability (Hinduism Today, May, 1999, page 28) should have attracted little attention. The belief that disability is the result of past life karma is held by Hindus, Buddhists and other religionists. If Hoddle, UK's national football team coach, had been winning a few more games, the nation might have ignored his comments. However, The Times newspaper made them a national issue, resulting in his termination. Some UK Hindus sought to explain our central concepts of karma and reincarnation, others ducked the issue. I think all Hindus should understand how Hoddle's views on karma and reincarnation came to be wrongly taken as an insult to disabled people.
The misinterpretation was clearly stated by Anne Rae, chairperson of the British Council of Disabled People. "Hoddle's views have angered and frustrated those Disabled People who understand that these medieval beliefs underlie much of the (unspoken) justification for prejudice and discrimination against us. Good life, good reincarnation; bad life, bad reincarnation. Not dissimilar to the view held by some Christians that 'the sins of the father are visited upon the children.'" Our issue is this: will any particular explanation of disability, either by birth or accident, automatically result in "prejudice and discrimination" against the disabled? I think Hinduism offers a very rational explanation for disability and a compelling rationale for respect and proper treatment of the disabled.
When I encounter disability, how, from my Hindu perspective, should I react? True, according to the laws of karma and reincarnation, the disability is necessarily a result of some past action. But the question before me is not, "Why him or her?" It is, "Given the situation, what is my duty?"
One must ask the right question if one wants the right answer. To conclude that the disabled, or others, are being punished for actions in a former life and that therefore I am excused from the obligation of helping them is not only a wrong deduction on my part, it is also a dangerous one. Such unfeeling, cold logic is not what a belief in karma countenances or recommends. It commends warm-hearted concern to minimize the person's problems, even though caused by his or her own actions in the past. Otherwise, according to that same law of karma, when we find ourselves similarly disadvantaged, we will ourselves be so treated, and will have deserved such treatment by our own callousness. It is not for us to say, "It is the result of your karma." It is for us to ask, "Given his or her condition, what is my duty, my dharma?" Otherwise, if you blame the victim, you will be blamed, rather than helped, when you happen to be the victim. As one spokesperson for the disabled in America pointedly quipped in a television interview, "Remember, we are an equal-opportunity club. You can become one of us anytime."
The person with the disability is indeed entitled to ask the perennial question, "Why me?" And, for him or her, karma and reincarnation provides an answer: it is a result of your own past deeds. This serves two ends. First, it keeps the one disabled from concluding that we live in a Godless, capricious universe and are victims of a purposeless fate. Second, one can now look to the future, for the doctrine of karma does not end with the proposition that what happens to us is the result of what we have done. It equally advances the proposition that we create our future by how we act now. So, do not wallow in self-pity but strive for a better future, an endeavor in which all others should readily help.
If I trip and fall, do I blame the law of gravitation? It explains my fall. But it also explains why I can walk again after standing up, without fear of flying off the Earth. So, while one can blame one's past karma, one cannot blame the Law of Karma

DinoBot

Asiaprod wrote:

. So, while one can blame one's past karma, one cannot

Is the end missing ??? ......................................

One thing I find when people speak of the disabled and Karma or sin is that they always conclude that the person is disabled because of bad karma. This may not be true.
If the ultimate goal is to escape from suffering (and rebirth) then to be born into a world that has no pain and all your wishes are granted will not motivate you to work to that end. At the end of that lifetime you may not have build up much positive karma at all, or you may leave that life without earning any more self awareness then when you entered.
But if you have suffering and overcome it you may gain much more. So what appears to be bad may not be.

Perhaps its something we all must experience before moving onward. Perhaps its part of the process of "letting go" of the attachment to our body. Perhaps you must acheive a certain level of sel-awareness before this process of "letting-go" can happen.

The disabled person may be much further along the path to enlightenment than most able-bodied people.

Asiaprod

DinoBot wrote:

Is the end missing ???

Good catch, its fixed.

DinoBot wrote:

The disabled person may be much further along the path to enlightenment than most able-bodied people.

I think there is a whole lot of truth in this thought.

18AD

The Dalai Lama doesn't represent my own opinions and views be they Buddhist or otherwise and I'd hope this be true for all others...unless you agree
The people who look up to him give him the authority he has, he doesn't possess it himself.

Personally I don't believe in reincarnation so I can't really contribute to what was said.
Karma is a topic that I have difficulty grasping and am working on an explanation that is satisfactory. Beyond good and bad/reward and punishment what is karma? Because I don't think it works like that.

Asiaprod

18AD wrote:

Karma is a topic that I have difficulty grasping and am working on an explanation that is satisfactory. Beyond good and bad/reward and punishment what is karma? Because I don't think it works like that.

Interesting. Its always good to hear new ideas. How do you presently feel Karma works?

18AD

18AD wrote:

Karma is a topic that I have difficulty grasping and am working on an explanation that is satisfactory. Beyond good and bad/reward and punishment what is karma? Because I don't think it works like that.

Karma is action (literally. also 'ritual action', I believe). It's deliberate action. Deliberate actions have consequences. Whether we view such things as reward or punishment is of course our own reactions to and labelling things that happen as good or bad.

These may help
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud9.htm
If you want a proper in-depth dealing of it, read the Bhagavad Gita.

Kawabata wrote:

My question is whether belief in reincarnation is an essential component of buddhist belief and practice.

Any views gratefully received.

Buddhists believe in rebirth rather than reincarnation, though I suppose you don't believe either. In any case no, it's not essential. Like asiaprod says, here and now is the idea.

18AD

Asiaprod wrote:

Interesting. Its always good to hear new ideas. How do you presently feel Karma works?

I see Karma as an inherent balance in everything. From an emotional aspect I find that they flow from person to person but I don't think they disappear (ie. your anger/sorrow/happiness goes somewhere.) Since we are all interconnected some changes in the balance are harder to detach from than others. And this balance flows everywhere, possibly not only on an emotional level.
This idea is a work in progress. I don't really think time exists which kinda puts a halt on the idea that your actions have consequences making actions merge with consequences inseparably.
I think time is relative just like space/All there is is now. Both ideas fit together nicely or can work on their own.

There's another interpretation which I think is how a lot of people view it. That's that everything that happens is somehow justified by Karma. I think this is an integration of western monotheism with the idea of Karma. That it's a force that must be respected and punishment.reward await you in this life (as many people don't seem to have taken to the afterlife or reincarnation).

bluewolf wrote:

Karma is action (literally. also 'ritual action', I believe). It's deliberate action. Deliberate actions have consequences. Whether we view such things as reward or punishment is of course our own reactions to and labelling things that happen as good or bad.

These may help
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud9.htm
If you want a proper in-depth dealing of it, read the Bhagavad Gita.

Thanks for that. I'll have to read into this more thoroughly as I've been quite busy lately.

I don't know how this applies to reincarnation. Sorry if it's off topic.

18AD

18AD wrote:

I don't know how this applies to reincarnation. Sorry if it's off topic.

Heh, you can't really have one without the other in their original contexts.
And dharma as well of course - karma and dharma are very much linked.

cyberhog

Asiaprod wrote: »

according to the laws of karma and reincarnation, the disability is necessarily a result of some past action.

That is complete nonsense! Hindus don't seem to understand the stigma their irrational beliefs place on disabled people. Life is hard enough for the disabled, the last thing they need is to have to contend with some ridiculous notion that they are disabled because they were bad in a previous life.

Asiaprod wrote: »

I think Hinduism offers a very rational explanation for disability

I disagree.Hindus base their explanation on a concept for which there is no evidence of its existence. Their mindset is the very antipathy of rational thought.

I never saw this part before

The person with the disability is indeed entitled to ask the perennial question, "Why me?" And, for him or her, karma and reincarnation provides an answer: it is a result of your own past deeds.

Eh no, not necessarily. Some things do happen by chance. How we deal with them based on our dharma is our karma.
No, I certainly don't subscribe to the "everything happens because of your past deeds" version of it: there is chance as well.

roosh

Haven't been on in a while, but it's nice to see a discussion thread in here. I always find such discussions to be a great source of learning, and this one has been no different.

Perspective
My own perspective, which I can't really claim ownership of , and forgive me for stating the obvious, is that a major issue with concepts such as re-incarnation, karma, re-birth, etc. is people's preconceptions of them. We often tend to think that we understand what a concept means, bcos we are familiar with it; we know the common understanding of the concept and we assume that the common understanding is correct. The issue is that there can often be subtle differences, and sometimes quite glaring ones, between what we are sure a concept means and what it was intended to mean.

There is a further issue when some concepts are dependent on other concepts, for example, re-incarnation is somewhat dependent on the concept of self (I think that is accurate); and at the heart of both Buddhism and Hinduism is the idea that we are all conditioned into having an erroneous perception of self; this in turn colours our understanding of concepts such as re-incarnation.To understand re-incarnation we need to understand the self (and it is also worth highlighting that there is a difference between understanding, realisation and liberation - of which I would like to think I have at least reached the first "stage" with regard to some things).

New age
My own understanding which, again, is by no means my own, is - and forgive me again for sounding new age - that the universe is a single entity, of which we are a part; the universe is the ocean and we are a wave, to use a common spiritual analogy. We were not born in the sense that we did not come into existence at conception, or a few weeks after; what "we" are now existed prior to that in a different form - the sperm and the egg, which themselves existed in our parents, and so on back the line. When we die, "we" will not cease to exist, we will only change form - again, this is nothing new.

Even our thoughts have existed prior to our birth; the concepts that we think in terms of have merely been passed on through social and familial conditioning; these too will live on after we die, in the minds of others.


So, if we're thinking of re-incarnation in terms of the misperception of self, then we tend to develop a picture of us, as we are now popping up at a later date in the future, or us, as we are now having existed at a time in the past - if it was in the "Wild West" we were probably sporting a stetson and a golden handlebar moustache. But if we think of re-incarnation in terms of the universe, then it is the universe which is re-incarnating (from our perspective); changing form.

Soul
I think that many people used to believe that their internal voice (call it ego or what you will) was their soul - partly the basis for cartesian dualism I think; a belief which itself probably has it's basis in a misconception of spiritual teachings.; again, if we look at the manifestation of that internal voice, we can see it usually manifests as conceptual thought, which we have simply learned, which has been passed onto our bodies and which will be passed on to another body when they are born.


Hoddle & Hinduism
Oh, ya, to get back to the comments made by Hoddle; he undoubtedly made these comments based on his own pre-conceptions of Hindu beliefs, re-incarntion and karma. But if we again look at it, not from a false perception of self but from the perspective of the universe as a whole, then the idea of a person being punished for their past actions takes on a different meaning. It isn't that the disabled "individual" lived able bodied in the past, committed some wrong and is now being punished, but rather the actions of the persons ancestors lead to a disabled person being born, whatever those actions/choices may have been. These may not have been conscious choices, they may have been conditioned responses (and in all likelihood were). Some might say that it is "bad genetics" but that again would just be applying the non-existent concepts of "good" and "bad", it is simply genetics. It isn't something which is right or wrong, good or bad, it is simply the outcome of a series of actions.




Apologies, once I started I just kind of kept on going.

cyberhog

roosh wrote: »

But if we again look at it, not from a false perception of self but from the perspective of the universe as a whole, then the idea of a person being punished for their past actions takes on a different meaning. It isn't that the disabled "individual" lived able bodied in the past, committed some wrong and is now being punished, but rather the actions of the persons ancestors lead to a disabled person being born, whatever those actions/choices may have been.

I think that is still an appalling way to view disability.

The Bible says guilt isn't passed on.

Ezekiel 18:20

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Now I'm not a Christian but that makes a lot more sense to me than the Hindu perspective which I find to be quite offensive.

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

I think that is still an appalling way to view disability.

The Bible says guilt isn't passed on.



Now I'm not a Christian but that makes a lot more sense to me than the Hindu perspective which I find to be quite offensive.

My apologies, I probably wasn't too clear on what I was saying. Firstly, I can't say that I represent the Hindu philosophy, simply my own interpretation of it, which may not be an accurate interpretation at all.

If I gave the impression that being born with a disability is some form of punishment for past actions, or for the actions of ones ancestors then I misrepresented myself. The confusion may have arisen by reference to Glenn Hoddle, who I would argue has his own interpretation of Hindu philosophy, which could easily be less informed than my own - and I'm not that well informed on it.

Karma isn't a system of reward and punishment, it is simply "the law" of cause and effect, that every action has a consequence; not strictly the idea that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction", but rather that every action has a consequence - there are probably a few more details to it, but that is roughly what it is.

Now, I was probably wrong to single out an individuals parents and/or ancestors, but I was thinking of a very specific scenario when I typed it; there are of course a myriad scenarios which could lead to someone being born with a disability.

• For a child that is born with stunted growth perhaps, the cause could be that the mother smoked throughout her pregnancy.
• For children born with defects due to their mothers being prescribed thalidomide, their disability is the result of the actions of drug companies, doctors and their mother - without necessarily ascribing blame.
• The kids born in chernobyl were disabled due to the actions of whoever built the nuclear plant, and all the other actions that led to the fallout; and the causes and conditions that lead to their parents raising a family there.
• There may be other examples where two people conceive a child where their genes are not heterogenous enough and the child is born with a disability.

It's only an appalling way to view disability if you ascribe blame and see disability as some form of punishment; that's not actually, from what I understand, what Hindu or Buddhist teachings say about Karma.


With regard to the christain interpretation a lot hinges on what is meant by "sin"; ultimately there is no such things as "sin", in the sense that there is nothing to be punished. If you've read "the Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle, he makes an interesting point that the old greek term from whence the term "sin" comes, actually means "to miss the point", as in miss the target; or to get it wrong if you will. In terms of Buddhist (and perhaps Hindu) teachings it could be interpreted as misperception, or ignorance. In this case the "sins" of the father or parents are actually visited on the children, bcos they condition the child with many of the same misperceptions they have.

cyberhog

Nice post roosh, thanks for sharing your perspective.

roosh wrote: »

It's only an appalling way to view disability if you ascribe blame and see disability as some form of punishment; that's not actually, from what I understand, what Hindu or Buddhist teachings say about Karma.

Well I'm not an expert on Hindu teachings but I thought the article posted by Asiaprod made it pretty clear that Hindus do in fact ascribe blame.

By Arvind Sharma

...The belief that disability is the result of past life karma is held by Hindus, Buddhists and other religionists.

...

The person with the disability is indeed entitled to ask the perennial question, "Why me?" And, for him or her, karma and reincarnation provides an answer: it is a result of your own past deeds.


DR. ARVIND SHARMA is Birks Professor of Comparative Religion at McGill University, Montreal, Canada

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4345

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

Nice post roosh, thanks for sharing your perspective.




Well I'm not an expert on Hindu teachings but I thought the article posted by Asiaprod made it pretty clear that Hindus do in fact ascribe blame.



http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4345

Just to offer my own perspective on that; I think there are two critical things about the statement "it is a result of your own past deeds". Firstly, I wouldn't say that it necessarily ascribes blame, but rather states that it is the result of cause and effect. It is only if being born with a disability is seen as some form of punishment, that it might be taken as ascribing blame - but, to my knowledge, Hindu philosophy doesn't necessarily view it that way.

Perhaps even more critical is the phrase "your own"; again, this is just my own understanding, but central to Hindu philosophy is the question of "the nature of self" i.e. who/what exactly is this "your own"? To put it in very crude terms, and to again stress that this is just my own understanding, Hindu philosophy (which is based on experiential practices) says that (and I can't stress my apologies enough, for sounding "new agey" and crude) the universe is just single entity, from which we all manifest; which means that we are essentially all one entity. From this perspective it might be said that the universe is being punished for it's own past actions - if of course being born with a disability is viewed as being a form of punishment; which I wouldn't say it is.

cyberhog

roosh wrote: »

I think there are two critical things about the statement "it is a result of your own past deeds". Firstly, I wouldn't say that it necessarily ascribes blame, but rather states that it is the result of cause and effect.

So what sort of past deed do Hindus believe would cause a person to be born with a disability?

roosh wrote: »

Hindu philosophy says that the universe is just single entity, from which we all manifest; which means that we are essentially all one entity. From this perspective it might be said that the universe is being punished for it's own past actions...

If that were true then wouldn't it follow that we would all be born with a disability?

roosh

I can't really speak on behalf of Hindu teachings, but can only give my limited understanding of them, which is also based on my understanding of similar concepts in Buddhism.

cyberhog wrote: »

So what sort of past deed do Hindus believe would cause a person to be born with a disability?

I don't think Hindu teachings say that there is a "sort of deed" that would cause someone to be born with a disability.

It might be helpful to think more in terms of actions and consequences, or cause and effect, rather than in terms of deeds and punishment. If we look at it in reverse and start with the disability, where the disability is the effect; the "deeds" or more pointedly, the actions, are anything that has occurred to give rise to the disability - this can be an unfathomable matrix of criss-crossing actions.

If we take the case of thalidomide babies as an unfortunate example, there are many actions which lead to the children being born with the condition; everyone and everything involved in the process that lead to the mother taking thalidomide would be considered an action, from the mother taking the drug right down to the delivery person [who delivered it]'s decision to apply for a job with the delivery company, and everything besides; even the thoughts of the doctor, mother and delivery person would be considered actions, because they all have an effect in the process.

The disability arises as a result of these actions.

cyberhog wrote: »

If that were true then wouldn't it follow that we would all be born with a disability?

That was a bit of an oversimplification on my behalf, but I was just trying to emphasise that the actions which give rise to the disability are not necessarily the actions of the disabled individual as we might perceive them, or as they might perceive themselves

bou

What is the 'I' that carries on from one life to the next?
What is the 'I' that changes, is destroyed, is re-made?

What is the 'I' that carries on from this moment to the next?
What is the 'I' that changes, is destroyed, is re-made from one moment to the next?

Is the 'I' one thing, many things, neither one nor many, or both one and many?

What are the things we see around us? In what way do they exist? Are they real? Are they non-existent? Are the neither real nor non-existent? Are they both real and non-existent?

What is the universe? What is matter? What is energy? What is consciousness? What is being? What are other beings? How are things in true reality?

What is the subject who performs an action? What is the object of an action? What is an action? What are the causes of an action? What are the results of an action? When does the action begin and when does it complete?

What is karma?

These are some questions I don't really understand the answers to. Maybe there are no answers that can be described in simple terms.

The Buddha didn't answer questions like "What is the world?" He also said that karma can only be fully seen by a fully enlightened being. So perhaps formulas like "This result comes from this action" maybe can't be applied too easily.

There does seem to be the idea of a thread of extremely subtle consciousness that continues from one life to the next over a limitless number of lives. There is, it seems, also an infinite store of karmic imprints that goes along with that thread of consciousness. Some imprints are stronger or more prominent. Karmic imprints ripen at a particular time depending on the conditions that occur in interdependent circumstances. The cause is the karmic imprint and the condition is the circumstance. An imprint that relates to a particular experience could be from yesterday or from a billion lifetimes ago.

The experience of this self here now and these circumstances I'm experiencing and of these emotions arising are results of many many causes (karmic imprints) and conditions (interdependence). I could be utterly destitute and dying alone yet blissfully content or I could be fabulously fit, wealthy, popular and utterly depressed. I could be penniless and feel complete freedom and wealth. I could be wealthy and feel trapped and in constant need. Two people could be in exactly the same circumstances and yet perceive them in completely different ways. One could see friends in everybody they meet while the other sees only enemies and rivals. One could see barren waste and the other see beauty and possibility. Both could be injured and one feel only concern for others while the other sees nothing but their own pain. The same person one day sees bleakness while another day, in much the same circumstances, see with pleasure and joy. Things are subjective and relative.

Circumstances are ephemeral and indefinite. They can appear as pleasurable, painful, or neutral. We can see them this way or that depending on how we are. We can go beyond the perception and experience to see the truth underlying all experiences. We can let go and be.

I wish I was not this way. I wish things were different. I wish I could be this way forever. I wish things would not change. 'I', what is it? 'Wish' what is that? 'Things'?


I just don't know. 'I' wish 'I' knew.

cyberhog

roosh wrote: »

I can't really speak on behalf of Hindu teachings, but can only give my limited understanding of them, which is also based on my understanding of similar concepts in Buddhism.


I don't think Hindu teachings say that there is a "sort of deed" that would cause someone to be born with a disability.

It might be helpful to think more in terms of actions and consequences, or cause and effect, rather than in terms of deeds and punishment.

If we look at it in reverse and start with the disability, where the disability is the effect; the "deeds" or more pointedly, the actions, are anything that has occurred to give rise to the disability - this can be an unfathomable matrix of criss-crossing actions.

If we take the case of thalidomide babies as an unfortunate example, there are many actions which lead to the children being born with the condition; everyone and everything involved in the process that lead to the mother taking thalidomide would be considered an action, from the mother taking the drug right down to the delivery person [who delivered it]'s decision to apply for a job with the delivery company, and everything besides; even the thoughts of the doctor, mother and delivery person would be considered actions, because they all have an effect in the process.

The disability arises as a result of these actions.

As far as I'm concerned the author is clearly saying the consequence i.e. ( the disability) is a result of the person's own actions in the past.

To conclude that the disabled, or others, are being punished for actions in a former life and that therefore I am excused from the obligation of helping them is not only a wrong deduction on my part, it is also a dangerous one. Such unfeeling, cold logic is not what a belief in karma countenances or recommends. It commends warm-hearted concern to minimize the person's problems, even though caused by his or her own actions in the past.

Now it would seem logical to me to conclude that whatever the person did to curse them with a disability must have, in some way, been evil. Unless you believe being disabled is a reward for good behaviour?

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the author is clearly saying the consequence i.e. ( the disability) is a result of the person's own actions in the past.

That may indeed be the author's interpretation of Hinud philosophy, or it could be your interpretation of what he is saying; both of which could be misinterpretations of Hindu teachings, just as my own understanding could be inaccurate.

The things is, it cannot be considered in isolation, it must be considered in the context of Hindu teachings on the nature of self, or the nature of "the person". Again, that is central to Hindu philosophy, so what you understand by "the person", may not necessarily be what the author understands by "the person"; or both may not necessarily be what Hindu teachings teach about the nature of self.

cyberhog wrote: »

Now it would seem logical to me to conclude that whatever the person did to curse them with a disability must have, in some way, been evil. Unless you believe being disabled is a reward for good behaviour?

That's only if you view being born with a disability as being a punishment; I don't view it as either punishment or reward, it's simply a matter of cause and effect, if you want to put it in relative terms.

cyberhog

roosh wrote: »

That may indeed be the author's interpretation of Hinud philosophy, or it could be your interpretation of what he is saying; both of which could be misinterpretations of Hindu teachings, just as my own understanding could be inaccurate.

This is what another member wrote about the authors article.

Asiaprod wrote: »

It make sense to me, but I have been a Buddhist for more than 20 years.

If someone who has been a Buddhist for over 20 years thinks the article makes sense then I think it's safe to say the author knows what he's talking about.

roosh wrote: »

That's only if you view being born with a disability as being a punishment;I don't view it as either punishment or reward, it's simply a matter of cause and effect, if you want to put it in relative terms.

For someone who admits he has a "limited understanding" of Hindu teachings you seem very certain that it's just a matter of cause and effect.

It's just not that clear cut to me.

Hindu perceptions of disability

by H. Barry Waldman, Steven P. Perlman, Ramiz A. Chaudhry

Suffering, both mental and physical, "... is thought to be part of the unfolding of karma and is the consequence of past inappropriate action ... that occurred in either one's current life or in a past life." (2) This view is shared by Buddhist and Sikhs... Experiencing suffering satisfies the debt incurred for past negative behavior.

... the reality is that classical texts of Hinduism often refer to disabilities and deformities, "... as something fearful, usually a punishment for misdeeds.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2827/is_7_40/ai_n56366380/

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

This is what another member wrote about the authors article.

If someone who has been a Buddhist for over 20 years thinks the article makes sense then I think it's safe to say the author knows what he's talking about.

I think the article would make sense to anyone who reads it, but everyone is going to interpret it according to their own understanding of the concepts contained therein. So the sense that one person makes of it, may not necessarily be the same sense as another person makes of it.

The critical concept on which it is all based is the concept of "self".

cyberhog wrote: »

For someone who admits he has a "limited understanding" of Hindu teachings you seem very certain that it's just a matter of cause and effect.

It's just not that clear cut to me.

I am more familiar with the term Karma through Buddhist teachings and philosophy, than I am Hindu teachings; but from what I can gather the concept is not really used too differently.

Most of the teachings I've come across express it in terms of cause and effect, although there is more detail to it than that, but, from what I've encountered, not such that it changes the essential "nature" of it.

cyberhog wrote: »

Hindu perceptions of disability

by H. Barry Waldman, Steven P. Perlman, Ramiz A. Chaudhry

Suffering, both mental and physical, "... is thought to be part of the unfolding of karma and is the consequence of past inappropriate action ... that occurred in either one's current life or in a past life." (2) This view is shared by Buddhist and Sikhs... Experiencing suffering satisfies the debt incurred for past negative behavior.

... the reality is that classical texts of Hinduism often refer to disabilities and deformities, "... as something fearful, usually a punishment for misdeeds.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2827/is_7_40/ai_n56366380/

If you google "karma the law of cause and effect" you will undoubtedly come up with similar articles outlining how Karma is the law of cause and effect. That being said, such articles are not a primary source of reference, in [loose] reasearch terms; they are, at best, second or third hand references; they represent someone elses interpretation [often of someone elses interpretation] of the teachings. It is always preferable to investigate the teachings first hand and develop one's own perspective, and it is equally recommended to receive the teachings from a trained "master", so that concepts can be explained.

One such concept, and perhaps the most critical, is the concept of self - rather the attachment to that concept is more likely the most critical part; when we talk about being punished for "your", or "my", own past actions, inherent in that is an assumption about the nature of who/what this "your" and "my" are. Again, spiritual philosophy in general, including Buddhist and Hindu philosophy have a lot to say on this, such that it can completely change what it means for "someone" to be "reaping the 'rewards' of the Karma of their past actions".

Ultimately it comes down to each individuals understanding [realisation and liberation], based on their experience and interpretation of the teachings; so I could quite easily be mistaken in my understanding. I certainly haven't realised the truth of all of the teachings and I certainly haven't attained enlightenment. Of course that's not to say that I don't have any understanding of the teachings at all.

Discussion such as this are just one of the many way in which we can develop our understanding; putting our understanding forward to be questioned and trying to outline that understanding.

cyberhog

roosh wrote: »

I am more familiar with the term Karma through Buddhist teachings and philosophy, than I am Hindu teachings; but from what I can gather the concept is not really used too differently.

In which case my question becomes, how can you not view being born with a disability as a punishment when the Dalai Lama describes karma as a kind of cosmic policeman who will eventually bring to justice those who commit wrongs.

"Countless rebirths lie ahead, both good and bad. The effects of karma (actions) are inevitable, and in previous lifetimes we have accumulated negative karma which will inevitably have its fruition in this or future lives. Just as someone witnessed by police in a criminal act will eventually be caught and punished, so we too must face the consequences of faulty actions we have committed in the past, there is no way to be at ease; those actions are irreversible; we must eventually undergo their effects."

Dalai Lama XIV, from 'Kindness, Clarity and Insight'

http://books.google.ie/books?id=omgsm0I0YvMC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=%22Countless+rebirths+lie+ahead,+both+good+and+bad.%22&source=bl&ots=dGNIhCt_lb&sig=r8c4Q_M2zdk1CMEkRoxMDhGjirs&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Countless%20rebirths%20lie%20ahead%2C%20both%20good%20and%20bad.%22&f=false

And if that's not clear enough, just below is a snippet of Johann Hari's interview with, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama.

There is a soft-headed view among trendy Westerners that, while most religions have disturbing elements, Buddhism is a pure, simple, uncontaminated faith. Yet the Dalai Lama has suggested that Tibetans are being punished for their “bad karma”. Can this be true, Your Holiness? “Yes. Of course. We are punished for feudalism. Every event is due to one’s karma.” So, are disabled children being punished for sins in a past life? “Oh yes. Of course.”

You can read the rest of the interview here.

http://johannhari.com/2004/06/07/johann-interviews-the-dalai-lama/

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

In which case my question becomes, how can you not view being born with a disability as a punishment when the Dalai Lama describes karma as a kind of cosmic policeman who will eventually bring to justice those who commit wrongs.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=omgsm0I0YvMC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=%22Countless+rebirths+lie+ahead,+both+good+and+bad.%22&source=bl&ots=dGNIhCt_lb&sig=r8c4Q_M2zdk1CMEkRoxMDhGjirs&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Countless%20rebirths%20lie%20ahead%2C%20both%20good%20and%20bad.%22&f=false

And if that's not clear enough, just below is a snippet of Johann Hari's interview with, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama.


You can read the rest of the interview here.

http://johannhari.com/2004/06/07/johann-interviews-the-dalai-lama/

In short, because my understanding is based on more than just that snippet.

It is possible to speak in terms of "reward" and "punishment" of an individual, but again, this is all predicated on what is meant by "individual".

People born with a disability are "reaping the harvest" of the "seeds of Karma" that were sewn in the past. This simply means that they are experiencing the effect of an almost infathomable chain of causes.

Now, this can be termed as "punishment" but that is entirely dependent on what you mean by punishment; and it also begs the question as to who is doing the punishing and who is being punished?

If you ask HH the Dalai Lama that question, along with the question about children being punished for their past sins, and consider it in the context of the broader spectrum of Buddhist teachings [as delivered by HH DL and others], then the notion of a disability being a punishment for a past transgression would probably look entirely differently.

cyberhog

In the interview I linked to, the Dalai Lama completely agrees with the suggestion that disabled children are being punished for sins in a past life.You've just taken what he said and interpreted it in a way that suits how you happen to already think. It's all far too convenient I'm afraid.

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

In the interview I linked to, the Dalai Lama completely agrees with the suggestion that disabled children are being punished for sins in a past life.You've just taken what he said and interpreted it in a way that suits how you happen to already think. It's all far too convenient I'm afraid.

Indeed he might completely agree, but he might completely disagree on what you mean by "punish [with a disability]", "sins", "past life" and "children", just as we likely disagree on, at least, some of them.

For example, what is your understanding of the term "past life"; what do you think it means to "have a past life"?

getz

as spiritualists will tell you,they believe in reincarnation, after death they believe you will return about three generations later,in my case i remember as a baby being pushed in a pram down a hill to the seaside by a victorian woman,alongside the pram was two young ladies,one of them kept running across the road to look in shop windows,the road was very distinctive,it was not untill many years later by chance for the first time i went to scarborough and had the shock of finding myself on that road, also there are many cases of people under hypnotic influence going back into previous lives,so its very much a case of what you want to believe,

roosh

getz wrote: »

as spiritualists will tell you,they believe in reincarnation, after death they believe you will return about three generations later,in my case i remember as a baby being pushed in a pram down a hill to the seaside by a victorian woman,alongside the pram was two young ladies,one of them kept running across the road to look in shop windows,the road was very distinctive,it was not untill many years later by chance for the first time i went to scarborough and had the shock of finding myself on that road, also there are many cases of people under hypnotic influence going back into previous lives,so its very much a case of what you want to believe,

There is still the issue of the nature of self i.e. who/what it is that has the past life and who/what it is that experiences the memory.

cyberhog

roosh wrote: »

For example, what is your understanding of the term "past life"; what do you think it means to "have a past life"?

I don't believe in reincarnation/past lives or any other fanciful theories dreamt up by humans. I'm more concerned about the effect these unproven theories have on real people in the real world. In Buddhist countries the belief the disabled are working off bad karma leaves them shunned and stigmatised. I find that to be morally reprehensible and inexcusable.

roosh

cyberhog wrote: »

I don't believe in reincarnation/past lives or any other fanciful theories dreamt up by humans. I'm more concerned about the effect these unproven theories have on real people in the real world. In Buddhist countries the belief the disabled are working off bad karma leaves them shunned and stigmatised. I find that to be morally reprehensible and inexcusable.

I am probably in full agreement with you.