Buddhists and reincarnation?

[Inedible]

It isn't so much that most Budhdists are atheists as that so much of Buddhism is practiced without reference to God either way. The important thing is that God believes in Buddhists, right? All we have to do is be open to the possibility.

[suchandra]

 

It isn't so much that most Budhdists are atheists as that so much of Buddhism is practiced without reference to God either way. The important thing is that God believes in Buddhists, right? All we have to do is be open to the possibility.

A Buddhist who worships the murti of Lord Buddha surely develops love to his murti of Lord Buddha and this murti is of course none different from Lord Buddha. Why shouldnt he get the chance to serve the Lord and make further advancment? Yes, God believes in Buddhists and they believe in Buddha, reciprocative.

No, I don't become a Buddhists though.

[lokeshvara]

fascinating responses

 

when speaking of bhakti i am not refering to the same thing as what is cultivated by gaudiya vaishnavas between themselves and Krishna. by bhakti i am refering to the cultivation of pure devotion and trust that is developed between the individual and the divine and of course for the buddhist this is different as we do not see buddha as being seperate from ourselves..

 

kind of off topic but maybe interesting for the furthering of conversation. in the nilakantha mahakaruna dharani, one of the most important mantras to mahayana buddhists, the names of Vishnu and Shiva are included in the description of buddha Avalokiteshvara (manifestation of compassion) in it he is refered to as Narayana, Hare, Hara, and Yogasvara.

 

blessings

[theist]

 

fascinating responses

 

when speaking of bhakti i am not refering to the same thing as what is cultivated by gaudiya vaishnavas between themselves and Krishna. by bhakti i am refering to the cultivation of pure devotion and trust that is developed between the individual and the divine and of course for the buddhist this is different as we do not see buddha as being seperate from ourselves..

 

You have identified a very important distinction here. I believe you are saying you worship yourself as Buddha as long as you do not fullt realize that you are Buddha. Then once realized there would no longer be a need to worship.

 

Gaudiya Vaisnavas teach that we are indeed one with krsna but also simultaneously different in that we are distinct conscious beings. So they accept the oneness also but say that just seeing the oneness is incomplete.

 

The more I learn of this truth the more attracted to it I become.

 

 

 

 

kind of off topic but maybe interesting for the furthering of conversation. in the nilakantha mahakaruna dharani, one of the most important mantras to mahayana buddhists, the names of Vishnu and Shiva are included in the description of buddha Avalokiteshvara (manifestation of compassion) in it he is refered to as Narayana, Hare, Hara, and Yogasvara.

 

blessings

 

That's far out. Devotees talk of something called namabhasa where there is spiritual benefit (as measured by the Vaisnavas) in the Lord's Holy names even when chanted indicating something or someone else or when chanted with an impersonal understanding.

 

Hare Krsna

[jnani]

In the Lotus Sutra, the most revered scripture of many people in east Asia, Lord Buddha states:

 

 

Since I attained Buddhahood

the number of kalpas that have passed

is an immeasurable hundreds, thousands, ten thousands,

millions, trillions, asamkhyas.

Constantly I have preached the Law, teaching, converting

countless millions of living beings,

causing them to enter the Buddha way,

all this for immeasurable kalpas.

In order to save living beings,

as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana

but in truth I do not pass into extinction.

I am always here preaching the Law.

[suchandra]

 

In the Lotus Sutra, the most revered scripture of many people in east Asia, Lord Buddha states:

 

Since the Vaishnavas say, no way, bhagavat-dharma is only and solely meant for human beings and there're presently no more than may be 100,000 human beings who actually also behave like human beings on this planet, a really clever idea to preach meditation on Lord Vishnu (Lord Buddha) while pretending to preach atheism.

[jnani]

Dear Suchandra,

 

I understand, but my purpose for showing this excerpt from the Lotus Sutra is that Lord Buddha is therein not regarded as an enlighened mortal but a being of indefinite lifespan. In other words, very much like a God. Also in the same chapter Lord Buddha states "All living beings are my children and I am their father" (paraphrase).

 

I give this without judgement, but it is interesting from a Vaisnava perspective to see this aspect of Buddhism.

[suchandra]

 

Dear Suchandra,

 

I understand, but my purpose for showing this excerpt from the Lotus Sutra is that Lord Buddha is therein not regarded as an enlighened mortal but a being of indefinite lifespan. In other words, very much like a God. Also in the same chapter Lord Buddha states "All living beings are my children and I am their father" (paraphrase).

 

I give this without judgement, but it is interesting from a Vaisnava perspective to see this aspect of Buddhism.

Dear Jnani, thanks for posting, you're right Lord Buddha is not one of us but God Himself.

Above I posted:

Prabhupāda: Here we just say, we know, just like we, we are devotee of Lord Buddha, keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare. We glorify Lord Buddha because we know what is Buddha, sadaya-hṛdaya darśita-paśu-ghātam. So we know perfectly that He is incarnation of Krishna..............

 

[lokeshvara]

theist,

 

you bring up a very interesting issue, that of personal identity, that of god and that of the individual. i think perhaps we are not too far off in our understandings. buddhism does not deny the individual. we are all different, have different temperments, likes, personalities, talents, etc. however, we all have this eternal true self nature and that is that of being awakened, being free from samsara, being complete in wisdom, compassion, and skilled means. this doesn't mean though that every enlightened being is the same identity. its like the ocean. every wave, every drop is unique and individual but made of the same substance.

 

it is interesting too, the importance on holy names. buddhism has an entire tradition (pure land) that relies on the divine saving power of the holy name. in this case that of the buddha Amitabha and or Avalokiteshvara (depending on the devotees affinity)

 

i may be speaking herasy according to others in my own tradition but i see many similarities between traditions.

 

Jnani is correct, in mahayana/vajrayana Lord Buddha is not a mere human. even in the earliest suttas of the theravada it is established that he is not. this can be found in the sutta dedicated to the Brahmin, Dona who approached the Buddha asking if he was a deva like Indra, a gandharva, a yaksha, or a human. the buddha denied all of these possibilities and declared himself the Buddha.

 

the following is from the Lankavatara Sutra, another important text.

 

"Some recognize me as Tathágata, some as the self-existent one, some as Gautama the Ascetic, some as Buddha. Then there are others who recognize me as Brahma, as Vishnu, as Ishvara; some see me as Sun, as Moon; some as a reincarnation of the ancient sages; some as one of "ten powers"; some as Rama, some as Indra, and some as Varuna. Still there are others who speak of me as The Un-born, as Emptiness, as "Suchness," as Truth, as Reality, as Ultimate Principle; still there are others who see me as Dharmakaya, as Nirvana, as the Eternal; some speak of me as sameness, as non-duality, as un-dying, as formless; some think of me as the doctrine of Buddha-causation, or of Emancipation, or of the Noble Path; and some think of me as Divine Mind and Noble Wisdom. Thus in this world and in other worlds am I known by these uncounted names, but they all see me as the moon is seen in the water. Though they all honor, praise and esteem me, they do not fully understand the meaning and significance of the words they use; not having their own self-realization of Truth they cling to the words of their canonical books, or to what has been told to them, or to what they have imagined, and fail to see that the name they are using is only one of the many names of the Tathágata."

 

blessings

 

[bhaktajan]

1) I read in a Buddhist sutra long ago that Avalokiteshwara (a famous Boddhisattva-?) enjoined that mantra meditation must use a mantra comprised of the names of God (or names of Buddha-?).

 

Could you research this?

 

 

2) When enlightenment is attained (up to any degree) the world is preceived as suffering, suffering, and more suffering. No?

I feel that one must be fore-warned that enlightenment practically

always has provided the vision to see suffering.

 

ys,

Bhaktajan

[theist]

 

theist,

 

you bring up a very interesting issue, that of personal identity, that of god and that of the individual. i think perhaps we are not too far off in our understandings. buddhism does not deny the individual. we are all different, have different temperments, likes, personalities, talents, etc. however, we all have this eternal true self nature and that is that of being awakened, being free from samsara, being complete in wisdom, compassion, and skilled means. this doesn't mean though that every enlightened being is the same identity. its like the ocean. every wave, every drop is unique and individual but made of the same substance.

Lokeshvara,

 

I really want to make sure I understand you here properly. I believe this area of knowledge to be the most critical in all existence.

 

Now the individuality that I speak of holds true both in the conditioned state and the completely liberated state. A somewhat crude example is that an individual prisioner has his individuality while behind bars and once his sentence is up and he is released he retains his individuality in the state of freedom.

 

IOW's individuality is integral to the living being and is in no way a temporary condition.

 

Agree or ?

[lokeshvara]

Bhaktajan,

 

I am not quite sure if this is in the sutras, i will have to research it. the names that are invoked during mantras and dharanis varry. the main deity of the mantra is always addressed and sometimes the names of other buddhas and bodhisattvas along with the names of various protectors. some mantras like that of Nilakantha Avalokiteshvara invokes Avalokiteshvara as Hare, Hara, Narayana etc. so names are always present either directly or in directly as is the case with the ever popular "om mani padme hum"

 

enlightenment does not mean seeing the suffering of existance necessarially. those who are enlightened see this world for what it is, maya. because of this they are moved by compassion for those of us still stuck in it. they however, do not suffer. the mental abidings of these beings are called "brahmaviharas" and consist of: compassion, kindness, joy, and equanimity.

 

Theist,

 

i think this is where our systems part ways. thank you for clarifying what you mean. in buddhism there is the idea of anatman which often is misunderstood to mean "no self" it really means "not self" and is used to describe those things that we often think or our selves but they really aren't. the true self is something different. for us all of life is transformation. we are not the same person we were at the age of 10 or the age of 20 or the age of 40 and so on therefore in this system we are not the same after liberation either. its like being in a nightmare. when you have the nightmare you find yourself in a strange place with strange creatures and you think, "this is real, i am going to get hurt, this is very bad" then you wake up and remembering the dream you think about how silly those things are. they weren't real even your own dream body that could get hurt wasn't real.

 

Is there transformation that happens once liberated from maya in your system? is there any type of way you have to transform yourself for liberation to occurr or is it bestowed through the grace of Krishna?

 

blessings

[jnani]

 

IOW's individuality is integral to the living being and is in no way a temporary condition.

 

Agree or ?

 

Dear friends,

 

Although this question was directed to another, if I may, the Buddhist answer most generally is that "individuality is integral to the living being and is in EVERY way a temporary condition."

 

Buddhist ontology in the Mahayana traditions is radically different from Vaisnava ontology. It should be pointed out, however, that the philosophies of different schools make it very difficult to categorically state any position as being THE Buddhist position.

 

Even a question such as rebirth/reincarnation is not at all straightforward. Sutras and teachings can be found which lead one to believe that reincarnation is accepted, or that reincarnation is rejected, even within a single tradition. This tension is always present in Buddhism, and attempting to resolve it leads to some very subtle reasoning, or to enigmatic pronouncements which are difficult to interpret.

 

My experience has been that Buddhist laypersons from east Asia tend to accept reincarnation and the permanence of the unique individual but that Buddhist teachers, when pressed about the question, will either avoid answering directly, or deny the permanence of the unique individual.

 

Hare Krsna

[bhaktajan]

re: lokeshvara to Bhaktajan:

 

But all sentient beings are suffering, like a gentleman who will not exit the bathroom--after too long he is even seen as crazy or inable to get out on his own strength. No?

Thusly, the sober minded person seeks out permanence and repose from nature and samsara because actually 'all is doofy, funky, embarassing, dunkey chasing the carrot & stick' types of suffering. Like in the daily news papers advertise.

 

 

re: lokeshvara to Theist:

 

I've said in previous posting, 'the mind does not survive the death of the body'. The gita shows how the soul never changes during the 6 changes [birth, growth, maintanence, old age, disease, death].

 

In broad terms, the Buddhist assessment of reincarnation is 'to die consciously' --this is the way also followed by sadhus of India. The destinations are simularly arrange by different names--but, one who intends to ascend & alight to Las Vegas must arrange specifically for the desired destination after death.

1-suffer in life, seek the path the ABSOLUTE truth.

2-die without mental delirium, in a samadhi-like repose.

3-repeat the above until: "the Dharma of thePersonality of Godhead is revealed" during some time, some time during a kalpa sometime--then practice that dharma to relinquish one's own material sense of "I" and "mine".

 

may Krishna bless you,

bhaktajan

[lokeshvara]

 

Dear friends,

 

Although this question was directed to another, if I may, the Buddhist answer most generally is that "individuality is integral to the living being and is in EVERY way a temporary condition."

 

Buddhist ontology in the Mahayana traditions is radically different from Vaisnava ontology. It should be pointed out, however, that the philosophies of different schools make it very difficult to categorically state any position as being THE Buddhist position.

 

Even a question such as rebirth/reincarnation is not at all straightforward. Sutras and teachings can be found which lead one to believe that reincarnation is accepted, or that reincarnation is rejected, even within a single tradition. This tension is always present in Buddhism, and attempting to resolve it leads to some very subtle reasoning, or to enigmatic pronouncements which are difficult to interpret.

 

My experience has been that Buddhist laypersons from east Asia tend to accept reincarnation and the permanence of the unique individual but that Buddhist teachers, when pressed about the question, will either avoid answering directly, or deny the permanence of the unique individual.

 

Hare Krsna

namaste,

 

as far as personal identity goes, i will address that in the next post to Bhaktajan. but for rebirth. that is a constant in all buddhist traditions. it wasn't until buddhism met western secularism that there there was a question of whether or not rebirth is a part of buddhism. in the suttas, sutras, and tantras, along with abidharmic literature, rebirth is a given as it was taught by Lord Buddha. to deny rebirth would be considered to either take and eternalist or nihlist point of view, both disputed by the Buddha.

 

you will find to even on the largest english speaking buddhist forum (e sangha) it is against the TOS to claim Buddha did not teach rebirth. personal belief is a different story. there are a lot of people out there who claim rebirth doesn't happen but still call themselves buddhists. this is their choice, however they would be lying if they claimed it wasn't taught in Buddhadharma.

 

blessings

[lokeshvara]

 

re: lokeshvara to Bhaktajan:

 

But all sentient beings are suffering, like a gentleman who will not exit the bathroom--after too long he is even seen as crazy or inable to get out on his own strength. No?

Thusly, the sober minded person seeks out permanence and repose from nature and samsara because actually 'all is doofy, funky, embarassing, dunkey chasing the carrot & stick' types of suffering. Like in the daily news papers advertise.

 

 

re: lokeshvara to Theist:

 

I've said in previous posting, 'the mind does not survive the death of the body'. The gita shows how the soul never changes during the 6 changes [birth, growth, maintanence, old age, disease, death].

 

In broad terms, the Buddhist assessment of reincarnation is 'to die consciously' --this is the way also followed by sadhus of India. The destinations are simularly arrange by different names--but, one who intends to ascend & alight to Las Vegas must arrange specifically for the desired destination after death.

1-suffer in life, seek the path the ABSOLUTE truth.

2-die without mental delirium, in a samadhi-like repose.

3-repeat the above until: "the Dharma of thePersonality of Godhead is revealed" during some time, some time during a kalpa sometime--then practice that dharma to relinquish one's own material sense of "I" and "mine".

 

may Krishna bless you,

bhaktajan

 

Namaste Bhaktajan

 

you are absolutely right in your assesment of suffering. this is the first noble truth of the Buddha. in life there is suffering. we have the suffering of old age, sickness, death, losing those we love, being joined with those we don't get on with, not getting what we want etc. buddhists often refer to samsara as an ocean because it is built on tears. we even cry when we are happy. happiness here is not lasting and suffering is always quick to come.

 

this is not the only thing tho buddhas see. they are no longer effected by the suffering of samsara and because they do not distinguish between like and dislike, they can exist in samsara and nirvana at the same time. it doesn't take the prajna of a buddha tho to see the suffering of the world.

 

in the mahayana tradition buddhas/bodhisattvas do not seek repose for themselves only. if they did, they would fail. they are moved by the initial realization of suffering and achieve liberation for the benifit of all sentient beings. thats why buddhas and bodhisattvas manifest in the myriad of world systems to teach sentient beings, to cure illness, to show all manner of siddhis. its all for the benifit of others. they do not abandon samsara once they wake up.

 

i think it may be benificial to consider in the buddhist sense what makes up a being. this can be classified into the 5 Skandhas which are: form, sensation, mental formation, perception, and consciousness. at death these elements that we often assume as "I" break down and skatter. so then what is reborn? the store consciousness or Alayavijnana. this contains the karma and deep elements of personality along with tathagata-garbha or buddhanature.

 

it is also true that dying consciously is very important. this is because after death the being is thrown into bardo or inbetween states where if not aware, are at the mercy of their own karma and cravings which can lead to very bad rebirths. a good portion of mahayana buddhists have made provisions for this and have adopted some level of pure land practice. this ensures that if buddhahood is not achieved in this life, a particular buddha (usually Amitabha) will come to them at the end of this life and escort them to his buddhaworld which is considered outside the cycle of samsara and is therefore not marked by suffering, non self, and impermenance. once there, beings are free to train for as long as it takes to achieve bodhisattva and buddhahood.

 

other beings will choose to die consciously so that they may return to our world out of compassion for other beings. you see this with various gurus and high teachers.

 

i hope this clears things up a little.

 

Blessings

[bhaktajan]

The Vaishnava tradition is replete with the Boddhisattva sentiment of relinquishing the award of liberation in favor of continued service . . .

 

CC Adi 7.84 —“‘Religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation are known as the four goals of life, but before love of Godhead, the fifth and highest goal, these appear as insignificant as straw in the street.

 

CC Adi 7.145 —“The Supreme Lord, who is greater than the greatest, becomes submissive to even a very insignificant devotee because of his devotional service. It is the beautiful and exalted nature of devotional service that the infinite Lord becomes submissive to the infinitesimal living entity because of it. In reciprocal devotional activities with the Lord, the devotee actually enjoys the transcendental mellow of devotional service.

PURPORT —Becoming one with the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not very important for a devotee. Muktiù svayam mukulitaïjali sevate ’sman (Krsna-karnamåta 107). Speaking from his actual experience, Srila Bilvamaìgala Thakura says that if one develops love of Godhead, mukti (liberation) becomes subservient and unimportant to him. Mukti stands before the devotee and is prepared to render all kinds of services. . . .

 

CC Madhya 6.264-265 —The Bhattacarya continued, “The impersonalists, who do not accept the transcendental form of Lord Sri Krsna, and the demons, who are always engaged in blaspheming and fighting with Him, are punished by being merged into the Brahman effulgence. But that does not happen to the person engaged in the devotional service of the Lord.

CC Madhya 6.266 —“There are five kinds of liberation: salokya, samipya, sarupya, sarsti and sayujya.

PURPORT —Salokya means that after material liberation one is promoted to the planet where the Supreme Personality of Godhead resides, samipya means remaining an associate of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, sarupya means attaining a four-handed form exactly like that of the Lord., sarsti means attaining opulences like those of the Supreme Lord, and sayujya means merging into the Brahman effulgence of the Lord. These are the five types of liberation.

CC Madhya 6.267 —“If there is a chance to serve the Supreme Personality of Godhead, a pure devotee sometimes accepts the salokya, sarupya, samipya or sarsti forms of liberation, but never sayujya.

CC Madhya 6.268 —“A pure devotee does not like even to hear about sayujya-mukti, which inspires him with fear and hatred. Indeed, the pure devotee would rather go to hell than merge into the effulgence of the Lord.”

PURPORT —Srila Prabodhananda Sarasvati has sung, kaivalyam narakayate. The impersonalist’s conception of becoming one with the effulgence of the Lord is exactly like hell. Therefore, of the five types of liberation, the first four (salokya, samipya, sarupya and sarsti) are not so undesirable because they can be avenues of service to the Lord. Nonetheless, a pure devotee of Lord Krsna rejects even these types of liberation; he aspires only to serve Krsna birth after birth. He is not very interested in stopping the repetition of birth, for he simply desires to serve the Lord, even in hellish circumstances. Consequently the pure devotee hates and fears sayujya-mukti, merging into the effulgence of the Lord. This merging is due to an offense committed against the transcendental loving service of the Lord, and therefore it is not at all desirable for a pure devotee.

CC Madhya 15.109 —“By chanting the holy name of the Lord, one dissolves his entanglement in material activities. After this, one becomes very much attracted to Krsna, and thus dormant love for Krsna is awakened.

CC Madhya 15.110 —“‘The holy name of Lord Krsna is an attractive feature for many saintly, liberal people. It is the annihilator of all sinful reactions and is so powerful that, save for the dumb who cannot chant it, it is readily available to everyone, including the lowest type of man, the candala. The holy name of Krsna is the controller of the opulence of liberation, and it is identical with Krsna. When a person simply chants the holy name with his tongue, immediate effects are produced. Chanting the holy name does not depend on initiation, pious activities or the purascarya regulative principles generally observed before initiation. The holy name does not wait for any of these activities. It is self-sufficient.’”