Do you believe in souls?

Misconceptions are widespread, but anyone interested in getting beyond popular notions can rather easily find for themselves reasonably authoritative sources. I'm not familiar with the book JL just mentioned, so I can't comment on how good it might be. My recommendation is to bite the bullet and read any of the relatively good translations of the primary texts that have been available in English for about a hundred years. Some of it is tough sledding, but the effort will pay rich dividends. Most things of real, enduring value require effort, patience and discipline. The tawdry and things of ephemeral value are the easy ones and they can lure the unsuspecting into great suffering. Pay attention.

You don't need someone else to think for you, do you? Get the best source material possible, think about it, and try to duplicate the experiment. If it works, you'll have learned something. If it doesn't work for you after a sincere effort, you will have still learned something, and can go on to some other study.

Gold Barz, you said: "wow, all along i thought buddhism was deeply rooted on reincarnation."

Not zen buddhism; it's based on Reality (Dharma), on the end of the suffering (dukkha) that comes from delusion (maya).

One thing I have notices with JLN and Asherman - I may not get it - but they are more patient than I am in explaining my beliefs. It is a credit to them and Buddhism (if JLN is Buddhist - it could just be that he understands the concepts well).

TTF

so zen buddhism rejects any type of reincarnation

No, reincarnation is a useful concept, though difficult for a lot of people to understand. We don't accept transmigration of souls. These concepts are decidedly secondary to the Zen schools. Too much talk, not enough practice. We want to tear down and destroy discursive intellectualism that too often more tightly binds one to the Illusory World of Maya. In building elaborate analogies and metaphors there is a grave danger that we will end up thinking of them as real, and they aren't. Look at how difficult it is for you to get beyond popular ideas about Buddhism and reincarnation. You act as if these are real things. They aren't things, and they aren't real.

In Ultimate Reality there are no dimensions, no separateness of being. No ego, soul, or consciousness. Out of that great ineffable One, are born dreams. In that dream the universe of dimension and multiplicity arise. The dream world, Maya, and all sentient beings are illusory. We phantoms must deal with the illusory world. We are fooled into believing that we and our perceptual world are real. We form attachments to that which has no substance, and fear losing what we do not have anyway. We fear pain and the unknown as if we were the center of a real universe. This is only descriptive of what the "end state" is that we seek in Enlightenment. It is not very useful in obtaining that goal, and may even in some cases be counterproductive.

Let Enlightenment take care of itself. Get onto the path and start the journey. Instead of gazing always at the mountain peak, watch where you put your feet on each step. Along the Way there are brambles, loose gravel, precipices, and always the temptation to stop and rest in the warm sunshine. Keeping your eyes on the peak, may cause a hard fall. Pay attention. Pay attention. Pay attention.

i see what your saying, like zen buddhism doesnt really focus on reincarnation because it is too much talk and zen focuses on escaping the maya during this lifetime but how about those not in touch with their inner spirit yet, the ones who are in love and addicted to maya that they will want to reincarnate forever, right, yeah maya isnt real, it isnt the ultimate reality but it is still a reality, like me, i dont want to stop reincarnating anytime soon i just want to know if there is something beyond samsara, something better which i assume is Nirvana

There is no "inner self". There is no "you", nor "me". When you die, nothing of your ego or consciousness will remain. The course of least resistance is to accept the illusory world as real. Within Perceptual Reality, you may find great pleasures, but you will also be subject to great suffering. If you want to escape suffering, or to reduce the amount of suffering that is attached to Maya, then following the percepts of Buddhism is a good choice. Is Self and selfishness the wisest way to live one's life?

Is Enlightenment, even a glimpse of Enlightenment, worth the effort to achieve it? Absolutely, and without a moment's hesitation. The experience is almost infinitely better and more intense than anything you will experience, or even imagine. To be free of the false self, to merge back into God and be free from all pleasures, pain and suffering is beyond mere words. Given a choice of being the richest, most powerful and loved human, OR a perceptual moment of enlightenment is no choice at all for the dedicated seeker of wisdom.

so basically in zen buddhism they believe we got one life to live

If there is a such thing as a soul then it is one life. The body may loose life, but the soul may not loose life. Think of one life in that way.

Does the soul only get one body to live in/as though?

Asherman has given you the bottom line:
"Let Enlightenment take care of itself. Get onto the path and start the journey. Instead of gazing always at the mountain peak, watch where you put your feet on each step. Along the Way there are brambles, loose gravel, precipices, and always the temptation to stop and rest in the warm sunshine. Keeping your eyes on the peak, may cause a hard fall. Pay attention. Pay attention. Pay attention."
If you want to REALIZE the truth of Buddhism, you follow this advice. If you want to UNDERSTAND it intellectually, just keep on spinning your wheels. Philosophically, I prefer Nietzsche. For mystical realization I go to my cushion. There (and hopefully everywhere) I "pay attention" to each step as moment quietly follows moment. Freedom to be my true nature--blissfully without understanding.

man buddhism is so complicated, but i want to know the true meaning of it and i hope it does involve reincarnation

Gold Barz, I am VERY curious to know why you are so attached to the notion of reincarnation. Is it, possibly, because of a fear of oblivion, of ceasing to exist completely? Remember, when you die you will probably be no different than before you were born. Was that a problem? We obsess so much about "afterlife" but never give a thought to "beforebirth". As I see it, my body is a bundle of immortal energy, but my ego is all I am really concerned about (when stuck in Maya). The ego does not exist in reality. So I am NOW fundamentally what I was before I was before birth and what I will be after death. Nothing, but the full nothingness of Brahma, the spiritual Cosmos (as opposed to the observable universe of astronomy and physics which are refracted images of that spiritual Cosmos). Pardon my glossy terminology.

JLNobody

but this bundle you speak of, this dynamic false self hangs around after death

NO, No, NO, [size=7]No[/size]

Time is an illusion. It does not exist. There is no ego, no soul, no you, none of those exist. Where do the deadmen of your dreams go to when you awaken? Are they real even as you dream? WAKE UP! Let the dream go, let it pass.

im confused, most of the buddhist stuff i read believes in reincarnation, but you two guys dont are you sure you arent talking about zen buddhism and not buddhism in general, cause you guys are really messing with my mind colliding with the stuff i read

I confess that I AM talking about the zen version of Buddhism. I do not know as much as does Asherman about Buddhism in general. I have studied casually with four zen masters since 1961, but my reading of the literature on Buddhism has centered on the zen version. I can assure you that zen people do not talk much about theological matters. Their principal concern is personal liberation, which, as I understand the Buddha's teaching, is right--i.e., the causes and cure for existential suffering. One sees no attention to souls, rebirth, accumulation of merit, karma and the like.

Godbars,

I have no idea of what you are reading, much less how well the authors might be grounded in Buddhism. As noted elsewhere, there are many schools and sects of Buddhism and there is some pretty extreme doctrinal drift between them. The oldest and most historically correct texts are in Pali, and those are the foundation of Theravada. The texts I quoted above are from some of the oldest Theravadan texts. The Buddhism of the Theravada is centered on that which must be done for an iindividual to find Enlightenment and release from suffering for themselves. The monastic discipline is very strict, and most Theravadan's will spend at least a portion of their lives as monks, or nuns. This is a tough path requiring much of the seeker. The form does not lend itself well to people who have families and must live fully in the mundane world. As a result, the Theravadans remain a relatively small grouping, mostly centered in Southeast Asia. However, if you want to know and understand the fundamentals of Buddhism, it is to the Pali texts of the Theravada canon that you should begin.

A few hundred years after the historical Buddha's death a less austere form of Buddhism developed that we now call Mahayana. Most of the Buddhists today follow one, or another of the Mahayana sects. Mahayana Buddhism introduced the Bhodisatva concept. This concept is that poised to be released from the suffering of Maya, the incipient Buddha out of compassion for all sentient beings delays full Enlightenment to mitigate the suffering of those not yet ready for release. This was much more attractive to the masses, because they could continue living in the mundane world in the hope/belief/faith that in the future suffering would be diminished/banished through a Bhodisatva.

This had two important consequences: Buddhism became more accessible to the common person, and doctrinal drift increased dramatically.

THE SPREAD OF MAHAYANA BUDDHISM.

The number of Buddhists increased dramatically and the religion spread quickly. China was an especially fertile location for Buddhism. The Chinese were already very open to a "mix-and-match" approach to religion. Confucism was the foundation of Chinese life, but it is more concerned with the social relationships than with the mysteries of life, death and suffering. Philosophical Taoism (as opposed to other Taoist Schools) was associated with the ideal for wisdom and was associated with revered sages. The Chinese at first confused this from of Taoism with the Buddhism that arrived in China. There were two paths that Buddhism followed into China; First, Buddhist monks went West and came into contact with Greek civilization (Gandaran Period, Greek influence in Buddhist statuary is still evident), and then across the great deserts back to the Northern Chinese frontier. The Buddhism that resulted from that migratory route split into a large number of sects, and sub-sects, over a thousand years. One of the most popular was the "Pure Land" sects. In the more extreme Pure Land sects something very like transmigration of souls is believed in by the common laity. One dies and spends some time in a state appropriate to how they lived their lives (numerous "heavens" and "hells", and then reborn. At this extreme there are many similarities with the Abrahamic religions we're familiar with in the West at the lay level. Pure Land Clergy and scholars have a much more sophisticated grasp and understanding. I'll leave it to a Pure Land scholar to explain and explicate how they reconcile the popular conceptions with such essential doctrines as "no soul", of co-dependant arising, and other fundamental doctrines. Other Buddhist sects from Northern China are much less extreme and less problematically at odds with fundamental doctrine.

Buddhism also entered China via a sea-route from the South. This form was much closer to the "purity" of the Theravadans. Bhodidarma, the monk who is said to have brought Buddhism to Southern China, was immensely successful. He is said to have lived in a cave, and to have sat in meditation so long that his legs shriveled away. The Buddhism of Bhodidarma owed much to what is called the "Flower Sutra".

It goes something like this. As the Buddha lay upon his death bed, he called his disciples to him. They gathered around in countless thousands to witness the final sermon from the Buddha's lips. The Buddha asked if there were any questions that still needed to be answered. A much loved disciple noted for his learning and wisdom asked, "Is there any hidden, or esoteric, secret regarding the Dharma (Teaching)? Must the path be long and arduous, or can Enlightenment be easily obtained?" The Buddha plucked a flower, held it to his nose and smiled. Shortly, thereafter the Buddha died.

Many scholars believe that this Sutra is not historically accurate, but is instead from the early Mahayana period. This was one of the topics on my list of potential dissertation subjects, oh well. In any case, Bhodidarma is said to have made the Flower Sutra one of his major themes in spreading Buddhism in China. Southern Buddhism also split over time into two schools and many sects. The C'han School was especially successful and eventually found its way into Japan, where it is called Zen. There are three primary Japanese Zen sects, of which two are rather common in the West: Rinzai, and Soto. I was trained in the Soto Sect of Zen.

Chinese culture has always had exceptional impact on its neighbors. From China, Buddhism spread up into Mongolia, into the jungles and mountains of the South, and into Korea. Korean Buddhism, not surprisingly owes much to Northern Buddhist traditions. Korean folk culture places a great deal of emphasis on shamanistic practices, and those influences are also a unique feature seen in Korean sects.

TANTRIC BUDDHISM

Mahayana Buddhism also spread from Northern India into Nepal and Tibet. These kingdoms were geographically isolated, and had strong shamanistic religion called Bo, or Bonpa (translations of the term and spelling vary). Demons and spirits were very vivid to the populace of these isolated kingdoms where living conditions were very harsh. Buddhism may have entered Nepal even during the historical Buddha's life time. The primary thrust, however, came when Buddhist missionary monks carried Mahayana Buddhism into the mountains about two thousand years ago. Buddhism wasn't as easily absorbed there as it was in China, and many more of the native religious ideas, customs, and practices were incorporated. This is similar to the adoption of various "pagan" rituals, holidays, etc. by Christians as they converted Europe. The result was a unique form of Buddhism, and Mahayana, that most scholars regard as a separate school. Tantric Buddhism is also divided into several sects, each headed by a Lama said to be the reincarnation of his predecessors back to an almost legendary Buddhist Master. His Holiness the Dali Lama is sort of the "Boss of Bosses" within the Tantric School, and his highly revered for his scholarship, and Buddhist understanding by Buddhists around the world. The Tantric School also skates awfully close to the notion of transmigration of souls. The Dali Lama is from a poor family, but was identified as the incarnation of the dead Dali Lama by his knowledge of the unpublicized details about dead Lama's life and personal objects. I've met the Dali Lama, but haven't had the privilege of talking in detail about Buddhist doctrines with him. However, I believe that His Holiness could reconcile the apparent discrepancy between fundamental doctrine and the Tantric forms that seem to contradict it.

Now I'm sure that this gloss has done nothing to clear the matter of your obsession up, but perhaps it will help our readers more clearly understand that Buddhism isn't just one thing that clearly means the same thing to all who call themselves Buddhists. Most Buddhists have no more understanding of the foundations of their religion than do most followers of the Abrahamic religions. Buddhism to the lay person is often little more than an expression of their cultural heritage, a place to belong with friends and peers, a moral/ethical training school for their children, etc. Buddhism for some monks, clergy, and priests may be no more than a way to make a living. Buddhist scholars may know the history of Buddhism and how it developed, but hardly practice the religion at all. Buddhist Masters are often wise and very knowledgable about Buddhist doctrines. The current Dali Lama combines the best of all these aspects.

To even begin to do this justice, would take a semester at the very least.

Not quite. Granted, if we take Hume's approach, then all explanations of causation end up being post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. Most of us, however, tend to view causation somewhat differently (so did Hume, but he was rather confused on the whole subject). If one billiard ball strikes another, and the second is thereby moved, we not only can claim that the striking preceded the movement, and thus caused the movement, but we can also, with a good deal of certainty, explain why the striking caused the movement. Likewise, if I turn the key in a car's ignition and the car starts, I need not rely upon a simple "A precedes B" explanation of causation in order to explain why the key-turning caused the ignition.

In contrast, we have no causative explanation for "answered" prayers -- or, at least, we have no causative explanation that is any better than a mere post hoc ergo propter hoc analysis. If I pray for rain and it subsequently rains, there can be no kind of testing to determine if there is anything more than an accidental connection between the prayer and the rain. As Frank suggests, we might as well claim that throwing virgins into volcanoes appeases the volcano god. Or, as Lisa Simpson explained:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you? [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money] Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock. [Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

If you're being a strict Humean here, TTF, then we can largely throw out the notion of cause and effect. But then you have no more warrant to say that prayer leads to anything as to say that it leads to something. You can't convince Frank or me that prayers can be answered because, in the end, you can't convince anyone of anything.


Religious experience is inductive, but you're attempting to deduce something from that evidence: in this case, you're attempting to deduce a causal relationship (which isn't inductive reasoning, it's deductive). It's the deduction that is suspect -- I'll leave the inductive evidence for someone else to question.


Frank is far more of a combative agnostic than am I. Nevertheless, I have never seen anything even approaching conclusive evidence for or against the existence of God.

yeah and isnt the dalai lama a strong believer in reincarnation

oh yeah those stuff i read most are written by buddhist monks, scholars and master venerable (sp?) or whatever

Goldbars,

I believe in reincarnation, but not transmigration of souls. I rather expect that the Dali Lama also believes in reincarnation, but not the transmigration of souls, but that's for him to address since I haven't heard any pronouncebments from him on the subject.

I still have no idea where you are getting your "information", or how much credence should be placed in it. As I said before, several times, get a reasonably good translation of early Buddhist texts, especially the Pali texts of Theravada, and study THEM. Ultimately, you have to stop studying and begin to practice the precepts as best you can. I strongly suggest that you find a Master and follow him for awhile. Just be very, very careful because there are a lot of opportunists out there who haven't a clue about Buddhism ... including some "famous" teachers. Buddhism doesn't ask or expect you to "check" your brains at the door, use them.