Many Buddhist scriptures have the Buddha telling reincarnation stories. Many English speaking Buddhists prefer the word “rebirth” to “reincarnation” because they contend that “reincarnation” implies a non-Buddhist notion of an enduring, unchanging entity like a soul or spirit. Thus instead of a soul, some Buddhists’ rebirth theories describe streams of consciousness playing a role in the newly born person.
But wow, does that subtle distinction really matter? In practical term, I don’t think so. Having observed many lay Buddhists in China, Nepal and Japan, I don’t think the majority of lay practitioners understand nor care about the distinction. (I could be wrong, of course.) Thus before exploring the subtle rebirth theories, I am interested in this post’s more general question — Did the Buddha actually teach traditional reincarnation?
Reincarnation seems to be a large controversy in “Western Buddhism” — I see it discussed on many blogs. Some contemporary Buddhists contend that rebirth or reincarnation in any form is nonsensical and serves as an unnecessary obstacle in spreading Buddhism. But many contemporary Buddhists feel some rebirth model is essential to Buddhism. Thus my academic interest.
The diagram above illustrates how I presently categorize the answer to the question of this post. The paragraphs below elaborate the diagram.
A) YES: The Buddha taught Traditional Reincarnation
- Believed: He actually believed some variant of traditional Hindu concept of reincarnation.
- Only as Expedient: He did not believe in traditional reincarnation but since his listeners were so bought into it, he used it as an expedient means (upaya) to convey much more important pragmatic practices.
B) NO: The Buddha did not Teach Literal Reincarnation
- Rebirth: The Buddha did not belief any traditional version of Hindu Reincarnation because he did not believe in an enduring, unchanging soul or spirit. The Pali scriptures are consistent on this issue.
- Later Addition: The scriptures, written down hundreds of years after the Buddha’s life, are a mix of his actual teachings and later additions. Literal reincarnation stories exist in the scriptures but they are not those of the Buddha but added later by editors.
Caveat: Let me note that these positions are by no means mutually exclusive given the wide variety of Buddhist scriptures and the length of time the Buddha taught. And of course it goes unspoken that we can never really know what the Buddha taught or if he really existed (though I suspect he did).
Question to Readers:
- Do you feel my diagram captures the options? Am I confused? How would you change the diagram?
- Can you understand why I find this interesting from an academic/anthropological perspective?
Your diagram does capture the options I’ve seen discussed on this issue. The only thing I might add in is that a more consistant definition/translation/interpretation of “re-birth” would be “re-becoming”.
And yes, I certainly do see your interest in this subject. Right now I’m reading a book on the Jataka tales, and I couldn’t care less if they are ‘true’ or not, because they are beautiful, wonderful tales.
There most likely was no historical Buddha.
@ Adam
Great. “re-becoming” is interesting English word option! What version of the Jataka tales are you reading? Your kid(s) are still too young for them, right? Is the version you are reading something kids would like?
@ Rich
Could you give me a link (not a long cut and paste, please) to something talking about the Buddha being non-historical? (don’t want to hijack this thread)
@Sabio Lantz,
Read “The Masks of God” by Joseph Campbell
Book 2 “Oriental Mythology”, Chapter 5 Buddhist India.
[Thx Rich, I added links etc...]
@Sabio – Yes, I think he did teach rebirth, but like you point out, because the people of that time understood it and bought into it. So very much Upaya. However, I’ve also seen it as, since there is no abiding self, in each moment, everything is just a bit different, including ourselves and our thoughts. In each moment, it could be seen as a rebirth of sorts.
@ Kyle
Let me see if I can rephrase some version of what you said using the terms above and the diagram (for clarification purposes):
A2) Some scripture record The Buddha teaching traditional reincarnation reincarnation but he did not believe it and only used it as Upaya.
B1) So the Buddha did not actually teach traditional reincarnation to many of his disciples, but instead he taught a form of ‘rebirth’ that he felt was coherent his his view of no enduring self.
Or do you just believe A2 and you grab B1 so you can still read the scriptures and feel OK about them?
@Sabio
No definitely A2. Even in the Dhammapada he uses Hindu metaphors throughout. It is quite obvious in the earliest sutra’s he was playing towards a Hindu crowd, but only as a means of explaining what he was getting at. Not even the most conservative traditionalists really believe when he talked about Indra and such that it wasn’t just a metaphor.
It is merely my opinion that rebirth can be seen as metaphor for no abiding self, and the anicca in each moment. In every moment, we rebuild the illusion of self, and that even that illusion continues to change. Another way to see it is in fact the only that doesn’t change is the belief in the illusion of self. That is until one understands emptiness, and really sees nothing outside the skanhda compile self. But seeing anatta is more of a passing on or moving on, rather than a rebirth.
Ok, now I’m just rambling.
[ Hindu spam -- deleted]
]
["reincarnation posts invites this stuff !
Lovely and simple, though I would add two more options, the first of which being “Yes AND No”, based upon a teaching I heard by a Tibetan lama (not sure which school of Tibetan Buddhism, btw). He described reincarnation in the *Buddhist* sense as best illustrated by a wave passing through the ocean: a wave arises, it is comprised of a shared material/energy of “Ocean” but also has its own characteristics (shape, duration, etc). Literal? Traditional? er, sort of…
The second option I’d offer would be the Zen option of “Not Yes, and Not No.”
@ mama p:
The “Wave Analogy” is used both in Hinduism and Buddhism. I have heard it used to explain both traditional reincarnation and rebirth (no self). As with all analogies, their are highly malleable. But for the purposes of this discussion, I am going to stay away from contradictions as they allow all possibilities and thus no progress in the dialogue.
As my post says, though, perhaps sometime he taught reincarnation to please those who believed in it, but he personally did not believe in it himself. That is a “Yes and No” without contradiction.
Well it’s kind of an interesting question… but can it be answered? I see lot’s of opinions, but could you outline the criteria whereby you would make a distinction between the options, or a decision on which was the right one? What evidence are you assessing and by what criteria? The whole question seems to lack rigour.
Given that Western debates have spurred the question, what kinds of evidence and criteria do you think might affect the debate amongst Western Buddhists?
@ Jayarava
I agree – it can’t be answered. But people march about as if it can. And people spin out implications for others on this issue. So, we can’t answer it, but …
But as you say, if the belief (true or not) is used well perhaps we can ignore its “truth value”. I agree with that in part and illustrate it here and here in posts on using traditional reincarnation stories to help the mind.
But, if the method of allowing and propagating such claims also comes with a burden beyond the known value, then the end result may be more complex than imagined. That is what I am exploring.
Being a Dad and working full time, my “rigour” will always be very poor. Heck, without even those weak excuses, I doubt my quality would improve much. Doing the best I can.
But if you have suggestions, they are always appreciated.
For Western Buddhists, I see a humility and lack of attachment to the idea of rebirth as a fine option. Prescriptivists on either end may be a bit narrow.
@Sabio
I’m currently reading a new book titled “Endless Path” in which the author links 10 Jataka tales to the 10 paramitas. And yes, my kids are still too young for stories such as these but I will add them to the collection of tales along with some of Aesop’s fables that I’ve found.
And yes, I think “re-becoming” is more in-line with what the Buddha taught, more so than reincarnation or rebirth, especially when taking into consideration the effect of present karma on the process of enlightenment (and the path leading to it). Karma as I understand it binds us to samsara, and it isn’t enough to merely create good karma, but we must work toward trancending karma so that the tie is severed and there is no more “becoming” or “re-becoming”.
Thanx Adam — I added it to my Amazon list. I think I will try reading them to my kids. Have you read any other Jataka stories you think kids would enjoy (mine are 8 and 10 yo, so adult versions may be good too)? thanks for the title
@Sabio – sorry for the late response. I’ve read a couple of other ones here and there, but sadly I don’t have any links or more info. I’ve seen quite a few on Amazon in the past though, and decent priced used ones.
Pingback: Good Governance preached by Buddha « Dr Ko Ko Gyi’s Blog
See the blog:
http://this-life-buddhism.blogspot.com/
titled, Buddhism does not need rebirth, which discusses the early Buddhist sermons and shows that there is no evidence for the use of the Brahminic concept of rebirth in them.
As a Christian, Rebirth is a solely Spiritual Experience, and requires no striving.After Rebirth, one is required to Obey the teachings of God and Jesus Christ—which all told are very similar to the 8-fold Way—with elaboration and specifics—but failure to do so perfectly is not only going to be the reality of it all, but does not bar entrance to the Eternal, Perfect life.
““““““““““
Reincarnation requries perfect behavior with one try or hundreds, which does not in any way mirror the obvious imperfection that we are all fated to reflect due to our Divine Construction. If God the Creator wanted all of Mankind to be Perfect, He would have made each and every one of us to be born Sinless. Only happened once.
@ Caroline
I hear no interaction with this post. All I hear is a sermon. If you respond, I will keep it, otherwise, I will delete this comment.
Thanks
I am with Kyle on the A2 interpretation. If you followed me around in my kindergarten and recorded my conversations with 5 year old kids who talk about their grampas in heaven, you might wrongly conclude, based on your recordings of these conversations, that I believe in heaven. My purpose is to listen and connect, and hopefully reassure the kids, not to teach them anything about my views. Upaya in action.
Similarly when reading/studying the Nikayas, it’s valuable to consider to whom the Buddha is speaking.
@ Dan Gurney
If you followed me around the hospitals and clinics I work at, and saw how I speak to all the patients who hope for the Lord’s help during the times of their illnesses or sufferings, you’d swear I was a believer in a human-favoring deity too. I don’t know if I’d call it “Upaya” but I’d call it “thoughtful”.
If the Buddha taught it or not, matters not to me, but how we use ideas does matter. I think we agree on that.
Thanx for poppin’ in Dan !