Hi Tilt,tiltbillings wrote:No it is not.Aloka wrote:
Reincarnation is a Tibetan belief.
"Reincarnate tulkus" are Tibetan. Is there something similar in Theravada ?
Hi Tilt,tiltbillings wrote:No it is not.Aloka wrote:
Reincarnation is a Tibetan belief.
There are even more synonyms in Pali/Sanskrit than in English, as far as the language is concerned. But as far as the Dhamma is concerned, the Buddha 'split hairs' when someone misconstrued his POV, e.g. in M 38.mikenz66 wrote:As far as I can tell, in English rebirth and reincarnation are synonyms. Neither of them really capture the Buddhist POV, so splitting hairs over a couple of English words seems a bit pointless.
It is "reincarnation" only if one assumes that a popular level of speech is the accurate way of talking about things, but Tibetan Buddhism has a great deal more sophistication than that.Aloka wrote:Hi Tilt,tiltbillings wrote:No it is not.Aloka wrote:
Reincarnation is a Tibetan belief.
"Reincarnate tulkus" are Tibetan. Is there something similar in Theravada ?
I guess it depends on what one calls "sophistication". I was involved with TB for many years (including doing all the 'Bardo" teachings and related practices).. and to be honest, leaving it behind has been like a much needed breath of fresh air.Tiltbillings wrote:Tibetan Buddhism has a great deal more sophistication than that.
You obviously did not hang around with Gelugpas.Aloka wrote:I guess it depends on what one calls "sophistication". I was involved with TB for many years (including doing all the 'Bardo" teachings and related practices)...Tiltbillings wrote:Tibetan Buddhism has a great deal more sophistication than that.
Don't forget that Dr. Stevenson him self believed in rebirth/reincarnation as a result of his research.Aloka wrote:"Those who want to believe in survival of a personality after death will likely ignore the weaknesses in Stevenson's methods and praise him for his meticulousness, his devotion to detail, his zeal to get every claim verified or disproved. For my part, I have to agree with Stevenson's own assessment of his work: he's provided evidence, but no compelling evidence for reincarnation.
http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html
Please define "hanging around" before we can move further in this topic.tiltbillings wrote: You obviously did not hang around with Gelugpas.
What I say, is that to me personally it proves nothing at all. I'm sorry but you'll have to come up with something better than Ian stevenson to convince me that there's verfiable evidence of rebirth and I'm very open to any new suggestions.Rahula wrote:Don't forget that Dr. Stevenson him self believed in rebirth/reincarnation as a result of his research.
He had found matching autopsy records in some cases. What do you say about that?
Actually, the Truth/Dhamma is found in the interdependent conditioned rise of just six things:Rahula wrote:The Truth is Out There...
"Monks, I will teach you the all. And what is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds the nose and odors, the tongue and tastes, the body and touch, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. If anyone, monks, should speak thus: ' Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all' - that would be a mere empty boast." SN IV 15.
In other words, the Truth is not out there at all.26.The import of this significant declaration can be understood in the context of those suttas in which the Buddha defines the concept of the world. The 'world,' for the Buddha, arises in the six sense-spheres (See above Note 21). Hence its cessation too, is to be experienced there, in the cessation of the six sense-spheres (salaayatananirodha). "I will teach you, monks, how the world comes to be and passes away... What monks, is the arising of the world? Dependent on eye and forms, arises visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling. Conditioned by feeling, craving. Conditioned by craving, grasping. Conditioned by grasping, becoming. Conditioned by becoming, birth. And conditioned by birth, arise decay, death, grief lamentation, suffering, despair. This is the arising of the world.
- It is in this very fathom-long physical frame with its perceptions and mind, that, I declare, lies the world, and the arising of the world, and the cessation of the world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world."[26]
And what, monks, is the passing away of the world? Dependent on the eye and forms arise visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling. Conditioned by feeling is craving. By the utter fading away and cessation of that craving, grasping ceases, by the ceasing of grasping, becoming ceases, by the ceasing of becoming birth ceases, by the ceasing of birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamentation, suffering, despair, cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire man of Ill.
— SN 2.26; S i 61; CDB i 157
Kamma isn't some kind of cosmic punishment system. The Buddha said that the precise working out of the results of kamma was unconjecturable:Rahula wrote:
Now I understand why poor people I know get tremendous amounts of trouble, one after another, while some rich people I know always get lucky at most things they do. I would have looked at same things in a logical way and explain them differently if I didn't believe in karma. But not anymore.
AN 4.77 Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Was the last line of my post, above it was the whole idea.The Truth is Out There
Yes, of-cause. Did I mention otherwise.Aloka wrote:Kamma isn't some kind of cosmic punishment system. The Buddha said that the precise working out of the results of kamma was unconjecturable:
Punishment, now that's an emotional way to describe it. Wouldn't it be more "punishable" to people if karma is completely random? For example to babies who are born with AIDS.Aloka wrote: Kamma isn't some kind of cosmic punishment system.