Of souls and reincarnation

The Buddhists say there is reincarnation but no transmigration of a soul. Their view is that there is no soul or self.

truth
Right, Coluber. I've always felt it was a Buddhist contradiction, this transmigration of souls but with no ego/soul existing. And I could never get a zen sensei or roshi to explain it to me. They just smile and say something like, "If you knew it wouldn't help you. Just get back to your mediation." It is my hunch that if we can talk about re-incarnation (rebirth into a body), it is not we, as named ego-centered individuals, who do so. If the universe is a single unity of which we are intrinsic aspects, it would seem to follow that when "I" die and others are being born they (all of them) ARE me, as well as you. My true essence is also "re-incarnating" into every living creature that is born, even now, while I live. This "theory" adds to the pleasure I get from seeing newborn babies of our own and of other species. Babies, cubs, kittens, etc. are "cute" in part because they are innocent and harmless and because they represent our own spring-time. But this is only if our point of reference is the Totality not our individual egos.[

JL,

Actually I did write a short essay addressing this. After around 750 words I hit the submit button and it went off into the cornfield. Give me a few days and maybe I'll write another draft. I really, really hate doing anything twice, and to lose an hours work is disappointing. Oh well.

I can recommend you reading Plato's PHAEDO, though it is written in a myth form and myth cannot be taken word for word.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/phaedo.htm

"For after death, as they say, the genius of each individual, to whom
he belonged in life, leads him to a certain place in which the dead
are gathered together for judgment, whence they go into the world
below, following the guide who is appointed to conduct them from
this world to the other: and when they have there received their due
and remained their time, another guide brings them back again after
many revolutions of ages. Now this journey to the other world is
not, as Aeschylus says in the "Telephus," a single and straight
path-no guide would be wanted for that, and no one could miss a single
path; but there are many partings of the road, and windings, as I must
infer from the rites and sacrifices which are offered to the gods
below in places where three ways meet on earth. The wise and orderly
soul is conscious of her situation and follows in the path; but the
soul which desires the body, and which, as I was relating before,
has long been fluttering about the lifeless frame and the world of
sight, is after many struggles and many sufferings hardly and with
violence carried away by her attendant genius, and when she arrives at
the place where the other souls are gathered, if she be impure and
have done impure deeds, or been concerned in foul murders or other
crimes which are the brothers of these, and the works of brothers in
crime-from that soul everyone flees and turns away; no one will be her
companion, no one her guide, but alone she wanders in extremity of
evil until certain times are fulfilled, and when they are fulfilled,
she is borne irresistibly to her own fitting habitation; as every pure
and just soul which has passed through life in the company and under
the guidance of the gods has also her own proper home."

Satt says: I think here is a hint to the truth about soul.

Many people who've had near-death experiences report having experienced a remarkable oneness with everything/The Source/God, that everything is actually one whole (separateness merely being an illusion). Search for "near-death" in Google or something if you're interested in reading about it.

I don't know, JLNobody. From what I understand, the goal of Buddhism is to end the cycle of reincarnation. That sounds like it's subjective to me, an illusion to be seen through.

It seems to me like it refers to a transfer of identity from "just me within my body—ego" to all of nature, or the universe, or consciousness in general. Is that what you're saying?

And perhaps the "rebirth" simply refers to the moment to moment rebirth of the illusion of self or ego? I'm not saying that the goal of Buddhism is to attempt to destroy the illusion, just to see it as illusion. To attempt to destroy it would reinforce ego.

Am I making any sense here?

truth
Coluber, I think you are making very good sense. I think that Hindu PHILOSOPHERS are more inclined to conceptualize the wheel of birth and re-birth as a literal process of re-incarnation from which the totally enlightened individual escapes. I prefer to think of it as the moment-to-moment attachments and re-attachments we undergo in order to maintain a sense of our separate actuality. You put it better. And you are particularly correct in noting that efforts to free oneself from the ego illusion serves only to reinforce the separate ego since it is itself an act of the ego to secure itself in a state of "enlightenment." Just to awaken to the nature of our mind (minding) is, I think, sufficient. My earlier post was just an attempt to reframe the traditional literal notion of reincarnation in terms more acceptable to me.
Asherman, I look forward to you renewed attempt to address this issue.

It is quite true that pondering these things will be of little value in perfecting your practice of the Way. On the other hand, examination, analysis and consideration are fundamental to gaining a more complete understanding of the teaching. Most of the fundamentals on which our religion are constructed are implicit in the Deer Park Sermon, and those other scattered records of Sakyamuni's words. If that were all that existed, Buddhist texts could easily be carried around in your hatband. Instead, we have thousands of texts in Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, etc. It is in those later texts written by Buddhist scholars and devotees that certain concepts are drawn out and explicated. For example, the Bodhisattva idea underlying Mahayana Buddhism dates for several hundred years after the Great Decease. Where did the idea come from, if not from the intellectual examination of the implications of the Buddha's teachings? The inquiry into reincarnation and transmigration of souls is similarly worthy of our consideration as thoughtful Buddhists, even though it is of little direct practical use in our practice.

Buddhism is the child of the Hindu culture, and many of its concepts need to be placed into that context. Hinduism sees the world as an endless repetition of cycles. Out of timeless and infinite chaos order is danced into existence. "Good" and "evil" are opposite sides of the same coin, and over perceptual time, cancel one another out. As a cycle, or Kalpa, begins with life-affirming creation, so at the end of each Kalpa the balance is restored by cataclysmic destruction. Each of the Hindu Gods is balanced having both a male and female persona. Krishna dances the world into existence, Vishnu preserves, and Shiva destroys. Human kind lives caught up in the midst of the eternal struggle between the forces of creation and destruction. Humans, in the Hindu context, have souls that are exist through each Kalpa. Each human has a proper place in the balance. This is the source of the idea of Caste. Each person is born into a particular place in society, and if they fulfill their destiny during life, their souls may be reborn into a higher Caste. The notion of Caste is a strong mechanism for social stability, and it also reduces the value of individual talents and effort. As you might imagine there were a lot of unhappy campers born into the lower orders.

The Jains gained prominence as a religion by denying the existence of a soul (Atman). Jain doctrine, which predates Buddhism by at least a century, was free of the notion of Caste. The Jains abandoned the idea of transmigration of souls, but retained the idea of reincarnation without, to my knowledge, ever really developing the concept. Many Jain doctrines are similar to those of Buddhism, but the Jains never quite captured the masses.

Buddhism, in my opinion, was more successful in transcending the Hindu conceptions of the human place in existence. Buddhism focuses on the practical. It identifies suffering as the great evil that sentient beings struggle against, describes the causes of suffering, and prescribes a means by which suffering can be conquered. That's why many teachers generally regard speculation into first causes, post-mortal existences, etc. as being unworthy of serious Buddhists. Buddhism clearly rejects the existence of God(s), or of individual souls/existences, and denies mundane multiplicity as being Ultimate Reality. Thus, transmigration of souls is directly counter to fundamental Buddhist teachings.

How do we distinguish between transmigration of souls, and reincarnation?

"It is my hunch that if we can talk about re-incarnation (rebirth into a body), it is not we, as named ego-centered individuals, who do so. If the universe were a single unity of which we are intrinsic aspects, it would seem to follow that when "I" die and others are being born they (all of them) ARE me, as well as you. My true essence is also "re-incarnating" into every living creature that is born, even now, while I live. This "theory" adds to the pleasure I get from seeing newborn babies of our own and of other species. Babies, cubs, kittens, etc. are "cute" in part because they are innocent and harmless and because they represent our own springtime. But this is only if our point of reference is the Totality not our individual egos." This quote from JL Nobody's earlier posting is a good one, and does illustrate one of the differences between reincarnation where no "souls" are involved and survival of a "soul" from one life to another.

Though the perceptual world may be illusory, the appearance of multiplicity and dimensionality are factors that have to be dealt with so long as the illusion exists. With multiplicity, time and space come into "existence". Relationships, movement and change become possible. Physical laws and mathematics define the illusory world and there is order within chaos. When we drop a ball, it falls instead of flying off into the corner. If struck by an arrow, we bleed. Suffering arises from our attachment to the dream world we inhabit. We cling to a vanished past, and chase a future that can never be grasped. The moment is gone before we recognize it. In our attempts to deal with suffering we think, speak and act. That's Karma. Karma (Sanskrit), "to act".

All Karma is "bad" karma because it produces reactions that lead inevitably to further attachment to the Illusory World. As Buddhists, we want to eliminate suffering by awakening from the dream to indivisible, dimensionless, Ultimate Reality. Because we now exist within the dream world we think, we speak, we act. Each of those give rise to reactions, they become new causes for chains of behavior that will keep Maya, and suffering, alive. All that follows from our thoughts, words and actions will reverberate long after we die. A common metaphor is that of a lighted candle. The candle flame has been passed on to virgin wicks. The first candle is extinguished, but the candle flame lives on, but is it the same flame? That is also reincarnation. We want to halt, or at least limit the damage that this sort of reincarnation can do. That is accomplished by mindful self-discipline.

One of the reasons that Mahayana Buddhism has been so successful in finding adherents is that it appeals to common folk. Most people aren't religious scholars, but farmers and artisans. Most aren't willing to give up families and the pleasures of life to become monks whose whole existence is dedicated to personal Enlightenment. Most folks are religious because it gives them some comfort, some social status, and a feeling of belonging to a supportive group of peers. Most folks lie a little, cheat a little, and generally live as if there are no real consequences to how they behave. Folk beliefs and superstitions are as powerful to most as the finest reasoned theology. For those there is no clear distinction between reincarnation and transmigration of souls.

For some Buddhist sects, death might be followed by rebirth into a "heaven" or "hell" based on how well the dead person lived and whether the proper death rituals were followed. After a time, the person would be reborn into a socio-economic position consistent with their spiritual development. After countless rebirths, the person will progress spiritually to the point where they are capable of full enlightenment. Say the right ritual chants, live properly, and have the correct funeral service and a person can pretty much live a normal life with the expectation that later things will be better. This is to me suspiciously like transmigration of souls, and that probably is how followers of the Pure Land Sects would describe it. Not necessarily, that which "survives" isn't the person/personality, but rather the residual "after-image" of the dream creature that "died" in the perceptual world. Their Karma survived, not their separate being that after all never existed in the first place. All is illusory, even the post-mortal heavens and hells believed in by those who prefer to live in the mundane world. So for them the illusion of reality of this world is only replaced by the illusion of a temporary "heaven/hell" preceding their next incarnation along the road to eventual liberation. If a person in this world dies free of those illusions, then there would be no "heaven/hell", but rather a reintegration with the source.

truth
Thanks, Asherman for a very helpful and clearly expressed exposition of Buddhist fundamentals. You would have been an excellent university lecturer (assuming you were not).

I stopped working on my Doctorate in Oriental Philosophy and Religion to attend law school, then do a MPA. I had been going to school forever and needed to start bringing home a steady paycheck. Of course, I probably would have completed the degree in about the same time, but then there would have been years of clawing my way up the academic ladder. I loved the getting of an education, but hated the idea of academic politics and the continuing pressure to publish. I don't regret the choice to leave the Ivory Tower.

Sometimes I think I should have pursued a more lucrative legal career, but not too often. I could have chosen to work more in the Federal sector, but I felt at the time that I could be more useful working close to the People at the municipal, or county level. Again, I don't really regret that choice and my involvement with law enforcement some of the most enjoyable years of my career. Oh how I loved the chase and the satisfaction of taking bad actors out of circulation, if only for a little while. I have teaching credentials and thought that I might like teaching some lower division classes after retirement, but my hearing is so bad that it would short-change students to have me in the classroom.

These days I paint. I read alot, but less serious material than when I was younger. Popular novels are fun and don't require much thought. I'm retired and only work when I want to ... and thinking is work. I've cut most of my ties with government, and now leave "Making the World Safe for Democracy" to the younger people. I still like to help people, to answer questions inside of the topical areas where I feel confident. Some of my skills have greatly diminished, ie. my Chinese is almost totally gone now with only a few words and phrases remaining. Interestingly enough my Sanskrit has held up somewhat better even though I never was really competent. I think I've mellowed out over the last few years, and its, its good.