Was Jesus a Buddhist?

[Scott N Denver]

I take it that Buddhist have to believe in reincarnation? (and thus need to 'stop the birthing and death' through nirvana) Otherwise, why dont they just kill themselves if they are so sick of reality?

have to??? No, actually not really. BUt things do make a lot more sense, and there are reasons to. However, liek many things, without personal or direct experience with those reasons, its just reaming kinda "out there" and you probably either you believe it or you don't, but both of those are just "believes" and you can "believe" whatever you want, reality is at is.

"If you understand, things are as they are. If you do not understand, things still are as they are."

 

[Scott N Denver]

Yes, but what about after? Its my understanding that Theravada Buddhism assumes that nirvana equates to oblivion, while Mahayana Buddhism assumes some sort of afterlife?

BOTH assert "rebirth" [ie what most people would call reincarnation but buddhsim gets really finnicky about this an-atman or "lack of self" terminology]. As I understand, both assert other levels of being to which one can "go" between physical earhtly rebirths. But yes, Theravada equates liberation with annihilation ["its like the flame of a candle simply extinguishes"] where as the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana as well basically both say "wait a minute, you asserted that [all things are connected], but you only extinguished your little individual self, what about all that other stuff, or all those other sentient beings that you are "related" to, what about them??? Your little "annihilation" enlightenment/liberation is inadequate and not complete!!!" Like the Bodhisattva vow says "... I vow to master all dharmas... I vow to liberate ALL sentient beings..."

So in short, both assert "after[physical] death conditions, and the validity of "rebirth." No differences yet. What they understand as "enlightenment" is different though, with the Theravadan view being seen as limited, incorrect, and incomplete from the Mahayana perspective.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I take it that Buddhist have to believe in reincarnation? (and thus need to 'stop the birthing and death' through nirvana) Otherwise, why dont they just kill themselves if they are so sick of reality?

Couldn't you ask that question of anyone? (Unless I'm misunderstanding you.)

Yes, but what about after? Its my understanding that Theravada Buddhism assumes that nirvana equates to oblivion, while Mahayana Buddhism assumes some sort of afterlife?

This is where Buddhism gets tricky. The ideas that nirvana equates to oblivion seems strange if you're talking about a person. No one just disappears, and certainly the Buddha didn't just disappear when he got enlightened. If you're talking about the oblivion of THE SELF, you're talking about the dissolution of a conceptual identity: the ego, I, me, an idea you conceive when thinking about yourself. That makes a little more sense to me, but if you have a source that contradicts that explanation, I'd be curious.

To say that Mahayana assumes an afterlife after reaching nirvana also seems a bit strange to me, because from what I know of Buddhist psychology/philosophy, nirvana is the end of karma, which means there is no more reincarnation. One possibility is that you're talking about a boddhisattva: a person who suspends their own enlightenment in order to help others reach enlightenment, reincarnating over and over. Mahayana Buddhist see the boddhisattva as an ideal people should strive for (and it kind of makes sense). The other possibility is that I just don't know enough to comment on this intelligently (very possible). LOL. Do you have something we can read on the subject?

Edit: just saw Scott's post. Maybe that clarifies it.

 

[Venom]

have to??? No, actually not really. BUt things do make a lot more sense, and there are reasons to. However, liek many things, without personal or direct experience with those reasons, its just reaming kinda "out there" and you probably either you believe it or you don't, but both of those are just "believes" and you can "believe" whatever you want, reality is at is.

"If you understand, things are as they are. If you do not understand, things still are as they are."

My point is about logic, not what buddhist are told they "have to believe" in order to be buddhist...

BOTH assert "rebirth" [ie what most people would call reincarnation but buddhsim gets really finnicky about this an-atman or "lack of self" terminology]. As I understand, both assert other levels of being to which one can "go" between physical earhtly rebirths. But yes, Theravada equates liberation with annihilation ["its like the flame of a candle simply extinguishes"] where as the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana as well basically both say "wait a minute, you asserted that [all things are connected], but you only extinguished your little individual self, what about all that other stuff, or all those other sentient beings that you are "related" to, what about them??? Your little "annihilation" enlightenment/liberation is inadequate and not complete!!!" Like the Bodhisattva vow says "... I vow to master all dharmas... I vow to liberate ALL sentient beings..."

So in short, both assert "after[physical] death conditions, and the validity of "rebirth." No differences yet. What they understand as "enlightenment" is different though, with the Theravadan view being seen as limited, incorrect, and incomplete from the Mahayana perspective.

Couldn't you ask that question of anyone? (Unless I'm misunderstanding you.)

My point is that (disclaimer: I dont think anyone should kill themselves!):

Hindusim: The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realize that one's ātman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul.

you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

Christianity: The goal is realize that you are a guilty sinner, and to beg for forgiveness in the hopes of either avoiding afterlife pain/or gaining afterlife living at all

you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

Islam: The goal is complete submission to allah (to the point that you are willing to die)

you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence, unless it is in order to bring about the will of Allah.

Buddhism: In Buddhism, suffering is meaningless, except insofar as it it exhausts bad karma. The principle aim of Buddhism is to end pointless suffering.

it seems rather obvious to anyone that this IS accomplishable by ending your own existence. I know some people are going to say the Buddhists arent against life, they are just against anyone suffering more than they have to. This would be fine, but that would be classic epicurean (not the modern usage of epicurean), and not buddhism. Buddhist literally want to transcend away from anything worthwhile on this earth, because it might cause suffering.

Buddhist live in the self protection mode, there is nothing that drives them to leave their little box of less suffering. Therefore, their main goal is just to limit suffering. Ending their own existence achieves this goal. The only way this would not accomplish the objective, is if there was more suffering awaiting you after, like reincarnation. Without a belief in reincarnation, wouldnt buddhism just be another form of nihilism? I mean any belief system that finds no point in living might count as nihilistic in some regards.

So then at the end of the day, is buddhism really a middle path? Its either another form of nihilism, or its another supernaturalism religion that requires you to believe in reincarnation. How is reincarnation any more believable than any other deistic religion?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

My point is that (disclaimer: I dont think anyone should kill themselves!):

Hindusim: The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realize that one's ātman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul.

you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

Christianity: The goal is realize that you are a guilty sinner, and to beg for forgiveness in the hopes of either avoiding afterlife pain/or gaining afterlife living at all

you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

Islam: The goal is complete submission to allah (to the point that you are willing to die)

you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence, unless it is in order to bring about the will of Allah.

Buddhism: In Buddhism, suffering is meaningless, except insofar as it it exhausts bad karma. The principle aim of Buddhism is to end pointless suffering.

it seems rather obvious to anyone that this IS accomplishable by ending your own existence. I know some people are going to say the Buddhists arent against life, they are just against anyone suffering more than they have to. This would be fine, but that would be classic epicurean (not the modern usage of epicurean), and not buddhism. Buddhist literally want to transcend away from anything worthwhile on this earth, because it might cause suffering.

Buddhist live in the self protection mode, there is nothing that drives them to leave their little box of less suffering. Therefore, their main goal is just to limit suffering. Ending their own existence achieves this goal. The only way this would not accomplish the objective, is if there was more suffering awaiting you after, like reincarnation. Without a belief in reincarnation, wouldnt buddhism just be another form of nihilism? I mean any belief system that finds no point in living might count as nihilistic in some regards.

So then at the end of the day, is buddhism really a middle path? Its either another form of nihilism, or its another supernaturalism religion that requires you to believe in reincarnation. How is reincarnation any more believable than any other deistic religion?

You said a lot here, much of which I don't necessarily agree with. But I'll address your original question about reincarnation.

The argument is this: if the goal is to eliminate suffering, wouldn't killing yourself be the easiest way? Since reincarnation would forestall that option, and since Buddhists do not kill themselves, Buddhists must believe in reincarnation.

I believe the traditional answer would be that killing yourself doesn't eliminate suffering because it's a product of karma and it perpetuates karma. In other words, you destroy yourself out of desire (for the elimination of suffering) and generate more karma in your next life. So in the end, you aren't in a better position after having killed yourself. This theory does rely on reincarnation.

But lets assume there was no reincarnation. First, most people don't suffer to the degree that they want to off themselves. They may believe there are less risky ways to find happiness than doing something so drastic. Second, while in theory you've eliminated suffering, you've also eliminated the opportunity for peace of mind. I wouldn't get hung up on the language. When we say Buddhists are looking for freedom from suffering, we're saying saying they're looking for peace of mind. Different words, same experience. Killing yourself prevents that experience from happening.

 

[Venom]

You said a lot here, much of which I don't necessarily agree with. But I'll address your original question about reincarnation.

The argument is this: if the goal is to eliminate suffering, wouldn't killing yourself be the easiest way? Since reincarnation would forestall that option, and since Buddhists do not kill themselves, Buddhists must believe in reincarnation.

I believe the traditional answer would be that killing yourself doesn't eliminate suffering because it's a product of karma and it perpetuates karma. In other words, you destroy yourself out of desire (for the elimination of suffering) and generate more karma in your next life. So in the end, you aren't in a better position after having killed yourself. This theory does rely on reincarnation.

But lets assume there was no reincarnation. First, most people don't suffer to the degree that they want to off themselves. They may believe there are less risky ways to find happiness than doing something so drastic. Second, while in theory you've eliminated suffering, you've also eliminated the opportunity for peace of mind. I wouldn't get hung up on the language. When we say Buddhists are looking for freedom from suffering, we're saying saying they're looking for peace of mind. Different words, same experience. Killing yourself prevents that experience from happening.

All makes sense, and what I was suspecting anyways.

The third paragraph has some supernatural stuff. This is fine, but it again leads to the agnosticism problem of any other religion. I also dont think any of the reincarnation stuff would be compatible with christianity (back to the OP of the thread).

The fourth paragraph might give a fine religion that fits agnosticism. However, its basically Epicureanism with more ascetic qualities:

"Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood.
In the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, friendship and living a virtuous and temperate life. He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on asceticism. He argued that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate a broad system of social morality that has survived."

The main difference is that epicureans merely 'verge' on asceticism. The Buddhist, seem to actually go to full asceticism (do they?). If we are going off Buddhism as described in your 4th paragraph, why the meditating, why the karma, why limit yourself more than you have to if all you are trying to do is find a hedonistic absence of pain?

In antiquity it was Platonism vs Epicureanism. In modernity, its Christianity vs Buddhism. Same religions, different names ???

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I think Scott might be able to shed more light on this, but I'll do my best.

All makes sense, and what I was suspecting anyways.

The third paragraph has some supernatural stuff. This is fine, but it again leads to the agnosticism problem of any other religion.

What's the agnosticism problem? Do you mean that it can't be empirically proven? That's true, but I believe a good teacher would tell you to keep an open mind but stay skeptical until you've verified it yourself. (There are sutras/discourses to that effect.) How do you verify reincarnation? I would assume through mental discipline and wisdom. Buddhist practice encourages a person to follow the Eightfold path. You develop a strong sense of ethics and compassion that is used as a foundation for concentration, which is used as a foundation for analysis and investigation ("insight" or "wisdom") into the true nature of the universe (ever-changing), identity (interdependent or "empty") and things (unsatisfactory). Collectively, they're called the 3 marks of existence and upon full realization, usher in peace, joy, insight, etc.

I also dont think any of the reincarnation stuff would be compatible with christianity (back to the OP of the thread).

If you accept that the core teachings of Christianity were mystical and that that core was subsequently adulterated, then I think it's possible to say that reincarnation is NOT INCONSISTENT with those core teachings. I realize that this is dangerous, since I'm not giving you a way to distinguish between the core teachings and the subsequent additions, but that's partly because I don't know enough about about the development of Christian texts. I don't know if anyone does.

The fourth paragraph might give a fine religion that fits agnosticism. However, its basically Epicureanism with more ascetic qualities:

The main difference is that epicureans merely 'verge' on asceticism. The Buddhist, seem to actually go to full asceticism (do they?). If we are going off Buddhism as described in your 4th paragraph, why the meditating, why the karma, why limit yourself more than you have to if all you are trying to do is find a hedonistic absence of pain?

The word hedonistic is tricky because it implies, at least to me, saturating your experience with pleasure--food, sex, drugs, etc. This isn't what Buddhism is about. The reason isn't philosophical, but practical: those experiences are fleeting and don't provide long term satisfaction. Junkies and people who are overweight do not usually end up healthy and content. If they did, that might be a different story.

However, the definition you provided, where pleasure is a function of the absence of suffering and suffering is eliminated through balance, friendship, and insight sounds pretty close to Buddhism.

I'm curious...have you ever meditated? Even if you haven't formally meditated, you probably have had points in your life where you felt free, quiet, connected, and joyous. I believe that THAT is more akin to the Buddhist conception of happiness and contentment than gluttony and inundated your sense with stimulation.

 

[Ayeaye]

If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer your other cheek as well.

This is don't like, Buddhist or not.Unless properly explained it is a piss take.I am not going to
go through the new testament and rip.The less wise, intelligent, located etc etc have an equal right to the expansion of knowledge.Maybe someone could justify it in some realm of reality but i don't want to know. It just takes the piss.

I am not seeking to discredit Jesus he or his followers must be prophets of wisdom & power.
The book is beyond the realm of a single man so possibly the statement has some hidden virtue
in a cosmic sense but down here right now on earth it's a bit cunty at face value.

There are also as you pointed out many great statements.

 

[Scott N Denver]

My point is about logic, not what buddhist are told they "have to believe" in order to be buddhist...





My point is that (disclaimer: I dont think anyone should kill themselves!):

Hindusim: The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realize that one's ātman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul.

you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

Christianity: The goal is realize that you are a guilty sinner, and to beg for forgiveness in the hopes of either avoiding afterlife pain/or gaining afterlife living at all

you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

Islam: The goal is complete submission to allah (to the point that you are willing to die)

you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence, unless it is in order to bring about the will of Allah.

Buddhism: In Buddhism, suffering is meaningless, except insofar as it it exhausts bad karma. The principle aim of Buddhism is to end pointless suffering.

it seems rather obvious to anyone that this IS accomplishable by ending your own existence. I know some people are going to say the Buddhists arent against life, they are just against anyone suffering more than they have to. This would be fine, but that would be classic epicurean (not the modern usage of epicurean), and not buddhism. Buddhist literally want to transcend away from anything worthwhile on this earth, because it might cause suffering.

Buddhist live in the self protection mode, there is nothing that drives them to leave their little box of less suffering. Therefore, their main goal is just to limit suffering. Ending their own existence achieves this goal. The only way this would not accomplish the objective, is if there was more suffering awaiting you after, like reincarnation. Without a belief in reincarnation, wouldnt buddhism just be another form of nihilism? I mean any belief system that finds no point in living might count as nihilistic in some regards.

So then at the end of the day, is buddhism really a middle path? Its either another form of nihilism, or its another supernaturalism religion that requires you to believe in reincarnation. How is reincarnation any more believable than any other deistic religion?

Not to get all persnippity, but your logic does not concern me.

"Zen is what happens after rational thought ceases."

I would say that it is a fallacy of logical thought to believe that all things can be "solved"/understood/whatever via logical thought. Meditation is largely about calming the "monkey mind." Try following your thoughts, I bet it goes something like this "TypC, keyboard, I'm hungry, TypC, exercise, hot woman, mouse, monitor, I'm hungry, ceiling, etc, etc, etc. "Sure, maybe not those exact thoughts, but some other thoughts will surely stand in there place. By taming the monkey mind, one is able to better focus, and to have more "space" between thoughts. All the logic in the world won't get you that. Heck, it will probably just get in the way. Not to bash on logic or logical thought, it has its place and we Buddhists and others can do it too, but we don't solely rely on it is my point.

IMO, Hinduism and Buddhism really aren't that different, well not at there top levels anyways. Which is funny because SO much of Buddhism was just a counterculture or movement against the prevailing hindu thoughts of the day. Think of Protestantism as a reaction or countercultural movement to Catholicism as another related example of that. "Oh look, you all believe in this "soul" or atman, well we're gonna snub you and say "no soul" or anatman!"

Okay, maybe thats just being blabby and besides the point. As one who practices advaita-vedanta, the type or school of hinduism that you are referring to, let me say this: Discovering that your "individual soul" or atman is identical to the fundamental ground of being "brahman" is basically done by "letting go" of one's soul [well, more like letting go of attachment to it], which in my mind is not one iota different form a Buddhist going "I have no soul/'fundamental existence' and when I follow my consciousness back to its original source, I find only formlessness or emptiness or basic unconditioned awareness." Expressed differently, the point of both Buddhism, and Hinduism [and Taoism for that matter!, and others] is liberation or enlightenment or emancipation or discovery of what self/not-self truly is, or whatever you wanna call that. Physically killing yourself does not accomplish that in any of those cases.

This is apparently pretty "out there" in the mind of your average westerner, but there are a variety of indirect and direct reasons that support or indicate reincarnation/rebirth. Put simply, when the rishis [seers] and others looked deep within their own being, they discovered imprints or impacts from previous births that carried over. They sensed this is in a very direct way. Certain portions of a person's being transmigrate from lifetime to lifetime, others do not. They saw that in a very direct way as well. Your average person on the street probably isn't going to much value or trust in this sort of "psychic" or "clairvoyant" "evidence", and in many respects why should they???, but these things weren't just pulled out of the air willy-nilly. One thing I personally like to emphasize is the following: EVERYTHING that gets talked about is something that, if one is willing to put the time and effort necessary for the training, one can "discover" or "investigate" or "verify" for ones self. We are practitioners, we *practice* these things. For us, this is NOT a faith, at least not in any blind or removed sense. "I don't need faith, I have experience"- wasn't that william james [19th century american psychologist]
Also remember, that historically Hinduism and Buddhism obviously originated in asian cultures. In those cultures teachings/beliefs like karma and reincarnation are simply cultural givens. They weren't scientific in outlook and values in the way that out culture is here today.

Also, note the difference between "I THINK committing suicide will end my existence forever because I don't believe in reincarnation" and "Committing suicide will end my existence forever because I don't believe in reincarnation." What is is, what is not is not, one's "beliefs" will not change something like that.

Do I understand your point? Yes. Does it bother me personally? no.
Its dangerous to apply logic in situations where it does not hold sway. Many things in life are illogical, or non-logical.

"Why do you suffer?
Because 99.999% of everything that you think,
do,
and say
is for yourself,
and there ins't one." Wei wu wei [I think it is anyways]

the sanksrit term is dukha, usually translated as "suffering", but perhaps "non-contentment" would be a much better translation. I think it is very easy to misunderstand or misinterpret Buddhism, and goodness knows the translations of terms and ideas often don't help there. Also, people often see Buddhism as a "philosophy", and perhaps to an extent it is, but basically the Buddha found a way to enlightenment, based upon experience and practices not just mere rumination and thinking and philosophizing, and then taught a pathway or "vehicle" so that others could follow in his footsteps and replicate his accomplishments. If someone wants to understand Buddhism, go practice it, merely philosophizing and ruminating and thinking and logical deduction and whatever else won't get you to its goal.

In one single simple sentence, the ultimate purpose of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and others is: "Discover the fundamental nature of your existence." Ways of doing that may differ, experiences may differ, interpretations of those experiences may differ, the value placed upon those experiences, the terminology used to describe those experiences may differ, all that stuff may differ. But the answer for "what are you, at your most fundamental level of being" is the same: undifferentiated empty formless attributeless consciousness, one without a second. But how does one describe that to others? What labels do you put on that that is without attributes? Emptiness??? formlessness??? not-self? self? atman? brahman? tao? kensho? satori? dharmakaya? suchness? tathagatagarbha? turiya? turiya-tita? Mind? Self? Buddha-nature? All of those, and more have been used, but they are just terms, just words. The experience to which those terms are applied is what matters. At the level of the fundamental nature of existence, there are no differences between, say Buddhism, and Hinduism and whoever else reaches this level, that I am aware of. Differences between Buddhism, Hinduism, etc don't show up until someone decides to leave a "method of training", and associated terminology, behind so that others may also peer into and discover the fundamental nature of there being.

Beware of philosophizing where it does not apply. Personally, I really like Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche's discussion of Buddhist ideas, and in particularly how westerners often misinterpret or misunderstand them.

 

[Scott N Denver]

Didn't christianty officially teach reincarnation until like the council of trent or the second council of nicea or one of those???

gnostics sure take a different view on christianity than your average christian of today does. a much more mystical view. and THAT view is much more aligned with Buddhist thought. the nag hammadhi find, like in the 1940's in egypt if i recall correctly, most famous for "the gospel of thomas" if i recall correctly

 

[Scott N Denver]

if you ask me, the similarities between buddhism and christianity basically boil down to "be a good, moral, caring, etc person, have a good heart."
differences:
-monotheistic cf "no fundmanetal deity that somehow stood outside of and created existence"
-"one lifetime cf reincarnation"
-one lifetime cf karma from previous births
-fundamental sin that someone long before you did and you have nothing whatsoever to do with other than supposedly being there descendant cf "its all karma, some is more skillful than other, no concept analogous to original sin, but there is "delusion" or "ignorance"
-1 heaven, 1 hell both forever cf LOTS of heavens and hells but your time there will be limited and then you'll move on
-inner awareness is largely irrelevant, just "believe the right thing!" cf "believes are largely irrelevant but inner awareness is the path away from unnecessary fundamental suffering
-discovering the "inner abilities of ones soul" is bad!!! cf discovering the inner abilities of one's soul is good as long as you don't become too attached to or distracted by it
-only like one person ever had "psychic" abilities and they died a long time ago
1 cf all people have the potential to awaken "psychic" awarenesses
-"thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" cf "we can teeach you how to discover those in-potential psychic awarenesses
-only your declaration of faith matters cf faith is largely irrelevant
-convert to OUR form of our faith, or we will kill you! cf most peaceful religion absorbed into multiple cultures/countries ever
-there is only one chosen tribe of people and they lived in historical-Israel! cf all places are equally manifestations of fundamental consciousness
-"truth" is found via me [aka your church-appointed preacher] and the church organization I serve with our one literally true book cf "truth" is found within no preachers needed and we have WAY more than just one book, and we don't declare them to be infallable either
-one lifetime only, rest of eternity determined by declaration of faith to the "correct" faith, cf we [tibetans] track are deceased leaders through the "death states" until they reincarnate again, at which point we locate them and make them our new leaders again
etc
etc
etc

I mean really, the list just goes on and on and on....

 

[lowtech redneck]

^So, if there is no individual soul (either in the Western sense or the Hindu sense as an aspect of an all-encompassing over-soul), what is reincarnated?

 

[Lark]

No he wasnt.

 

[Riva]

I'm still uncomfortable with that language, but I'll stop fussing about it after this post. Even after years of practice, you wouldn't feel nothing. You would still feel things, you wouldn't obsess about them, though. You wouldn't get attached and fixate on them, getting lost in the story. That can be thought of the opposite -- as ULTIMATE feeling, not no feeling, since you need to be present and experience things in order to let them go.

Even Zen Masters will still feel things. When I was studying in the Kwan Um School of Zen, I once heard a story how when one of the abbots passed away, Zen Master Seung Sahn cried and wailed for an entire night at the top of his lungs. The next day he started feeling better and eventually felt centered again. Rather than saying that the goal is to feel nothing, I think it's more accurate to say that the goal is to feel everything with the intention of not being possessed by your fears and thoughts about those feelings.

This is actually correct.

Like I said earlier if practiced correctly and persistently (refer noble 8 fold path) for a long period of time –

“one sees and is able to let go of what is harmful and unnecessary as soon as it arises.”

The issue here is distinguishing between feelings, emotions and thoughts. As long as there are nerves in the body (which are active) one would continue to feel things. This applies to Arahats (enlightened persons). Even arahats feel things. Feelings are actually subtle reactions which arise when due to external stimuli’s of the 5 sense bases (eyes, ears, tongue, nose and skin).

When a person,
Hears a loud noise – he feels it
Taste a food – he feels it
Etc

These are reactions made by the body. Feelings are reactions of the body. If a body does not feel any sense, it should be either dead or the nerves should be dead.

Emotions on the other hand are reactions made by the mind due to the feelings created by the body due to external stimuli picked up by the 5 sense bases. And thoughts are what arise due to emotions. And thoughts begat more and more emotions and in return the emotions create more and more thoughts etc (samskara). It goes on and on.

So as you see –

An Arahat would feel things. But would simply stop as soon as the he sees the rise of an emotion. He/she would stop it by continuous persistent practice. For an arahat it would be simply simple due to practice.

Therefore since the arahat stops the emotion no thoughts arise due to it. No worries, no stress, no sadness (emotions).

It should also be noted that –

Even thoughts without feelings would begat emotions, more thoughts and even feelings. Dreaming is a good example.

 

[Riva]

^So, if there is no individual soul (either in the Western sense or the Hindu sense as an aspect of an all-encompassing over-soul), what is reincarnated?

Good question. I would answer you on the point of Theravada Buddhism..

When one dies there is rebirth, is what was believed in Hinduism, Buddhism and similar concepts. The concept of reincarnation predates Buddhism.

Three marks of existence.

Anicca - Impermanence
Dukkha - Suffering
Anatta - No soul


Are the three marks of existence a person needs to realize to actually start bring suffering to an end. If this is not realized no one would actually be bothered to follow the path to liberation..

As you can see the 3rd realization is Anatta which means No Soul. Now the question arises as to what would actually be reincarnated if not the soul?

One might think it is the soul that travels from one life to the other. Depending on the Karma it has accumulated it would go to a better place or worse. This is not the teaching of Buddha.

Vijnana –

Is what travels from one life to another. Vijnana is the continuation of thought. Since a normal person craves what one thinks (without actually knowing) there is vijnana. The simplest explanation I could come up with to describe Vijnanais the attraction power one has towards its thoughts ( feelings, emotions, sensations). That is the reason a normal person would get one thought after another. There is craving there is vijnana. And the vijnana binds the person to his thoughts and what comes after the thought. It could be emotions, it could be feelings, it could be sensations. All of which are followed or is being followed by more thoughts.

An arahat does not have vijnana. There is no craving. There are no thoughts due to the cravings.

When one dies it is vijnana that is reincarnated. The continuation of thought. That is what Buddhism teaches.The person we call as I is actually the continuation of thoughts.

Unfortunately this is the simplest description I could give.

 

[sLiPpY]

hmm... I know it's perfectly normal for humans to think about death and what is next?

Although it's very interesting learning what differing traditions and individuals think on the topic...

Oddly, I've never cared. I was born, and before that moment I remember nothing. When I die, I'd just assume that be it.

 

[Riva]

hmm... I know it's perfectly normal for humans to think about death and what is next?

Although it's very interesting learning what differing traditions and individuals think on the topic...

Oddly, I've never cared. I was born, and before that moment I remember nothing. When I die, I'd just assume that be it.

The reason behind this was also explained by Buddha.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

^So, if there is no individual soul (either in the Western sense or the Hindu sense as an aspect of an all-encompassing over-soul), what is reincarnated?

That's an awesome question that has an answer, but not one that I understand. The book "What the Buddha Taught" addresses that very question. I did a good search and may have found something to answer your question...or at least attempt to.

However, Buddhists often speak of "rebirth." If there is no soul or permanent self, what is it that is "reborn"?

What Is the Self?

The Buddha taught that what we think of as our "self" -- our ego, self-consciousness and personality -- is a creation of the skandhas. Very simply, our bodies, physical and emotional sensations, conceptualizations, ideas and beliefs, and consciousness work together to create the illusion of a permanent, distinctive "me."

The Buddha said, “Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die.” He meant that, every moment, the illusion of "me" renews itself. Not only is nothing carried over from one life to the next; nothing is carried over from one moment to the next.

This takes us to the Three Marks of Existence, in particular anicca, "impermanence." The Buddha taught that all phenomena, including beings, are in a constant state of flux -- always changing, always becoming, always dying.

What Is Reborn?

In his book What the Buddha Taught (1959), Theravada scholar Walpola Rahula asked,

"If we can understand that in this life we can continue without a permanent, unchanging substance like Self or Soul, why can't we understand that those forces themselves can continue without a Self or Soul behind them after the non-functioning of the body?

"When this physical body is no more capable of functioning, energies do not die with it, but continue to take some other shape or form, which we call another life. ... Physical and mental energies which constitute the so-called being have within themselves the power to take a new form, and grow gradually and gather force to the full."

Zen teacher John Daido Loori said,

"... the Buddha’s experience was that when you go beyond the skandhas, beyond the aggregates, what remains is nothing. The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next. Being born and dying continues unbroken but changes every moment."

Thought Moment to Thought Moment

The teachers tell us that "me" is a series of thought-moments. Each thought-moment conditions the next thought-moment. In the same way, the last thought-moment of one life conditions the first thought-moment of another life, which is the continuation of a series. "The person who dies here and is reborn elsewhere is neither the same person, nor another," Walpola Rahula wrote.

This is not easy to understand, and cannot be fully understood with intellect alone. For this reason, many schools of Buddhism emphasize a meditation practice that enables intimate realization of the illusion of self.

Karma and Rebirth

The force that propels this continuity is karma. Karma is another Asian concept that Westerners (and, for that matter, a lot of Easterners) often misunderstand. Karma is not fate, but simple action and reaction, cause and effect. For a more complete explanation, please see "Karma for Buddhists 101: Introduction to the Buddhist Understanding of Karma."

Very simply, Buddhism teaches that karma means "volitional action." Any thought, word or deed conditioned by desire, hate, passion and illusion create karma. When the effects of karma reach across lifetimes, karma brings about rebirth.

The Persistence of Belief in Reincarnation

There is no question that many Buddhists, East and West, continue to believe in individual reincarnation. Parables from the sutras and "teaching aids" like the Tibetan Wheel of Life tend to reinforce this belief.

The Rev. Takashi Tsuji, a Jodo Shinshu priest, wrote about belief in reincarnation:

"It is said that the Buddha left 84,000 teachings; the symbolic figure represents the diverse backgrounds characteristics, tastes, etc. of the people. The Buddha taught according to the mental and spiritual capacity of each individual. For the simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha, the doctrine of reincarnation was a powerful moral lesson. Fear of birth into the animal world must have frightened many people from acting like animals in this life. If we take this teaching literally today we are confused because we cannot understand it rationally.

"...A parable, when taken literally, does not make sense to the modern mind. Therefore we must learn to differentiate the parables and myths from actuality."

What's the Point?

People often turn to religion for doctrines that provide simple answers to difficult questions. Buddhism doesn't work that way. Merely believing in some doctrine about reincarnation or rebirth has no purpose. Buddhism is a practice that enables experiencing illusion as illusion and reality as reality.

The Buddha taught that our delusional belief in "me" causes our many dissatisfactions with life (dukkha). When the illusion is experienced as illusion, we are liberated. Source: Reincarnation - Buddhism and Reincarnation or Rebirth

I can kind of understand it intellectually--energies or tendencies are regrouping and doing the same thing elsewhere, but these energies are not independent of other things--but intuitively, yeah...I have to see it to believe it. But, alas, there is an answer and it is addressed in some form.

 

[matmos]

^So, if there is no individual soul (either in the Western sense or the Hindu sense as an aspect of an all-encompassing over-soul), what is reincarnated?

The attribution of a temporal element - time slices - addresses the puzzle.

According to The 4D View, temporally extended objects have temporal parts, temporal extension is perfectly analogous to spatial extension, and time is one of four dimensions that are on a par, at least with respect to the manner in which objects are spread out in space-time.

From: Time (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Particularly with Edahn's quote:

The Buddha said, “Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die.” He meant that, every moment, the illusion of "me" renews itself. Not only is nothing carried over from one life to the next; nothing is carried over from one moment to the next.

The problem is an incredibly interesting and difficult one. Like all really interesting puzzles, it has no real solution.

Further reading from Stanford.

@ 2:15
[YOUTUBE="bk24RdfXWcg"]Trigger's Broom[/YOUTUBE]

Which is a reference to the Ship of Theseus

Apologies if this seems a bit off-topic.

 

[corey_vann]

pretty sure he was a big fat jesus killing jew. wait...