Do all Buddhists believe in reincarnation?

I'm with you bawb. I'd like to know. It's a major hurdle for me.

If time is an illusion, I wonder if some of us will be reborn in the past. . .

Bawb, what is your idea of "re-incarnation"? Presumably it involves some kind of consciousness that moves from life to life? If so, I hope I'm right in saying the answer will be a firm no. I suspect a more accurate and telling question would in fact be, "Do any Buddhists believe in re-incarnation?", or at least, "Which sects do?" rather than don't, assuming the definition is as above. I don't even think they like the word itself because of it's connotations with some fixed entity passing from life to life.

I like to think of the talk of realms and lives in terms of parables and metaphors. I think (hoping some Buddhists will reply regardless of what I'm saying) that the metaphor of a candle flame being transferred from one candle to the next is illustrative of the Buddhist position, in that, what we have is every new flame being created was dependent on the previous flame for it's creation and is therefore linked with the previous flame but they're not identical. This all links in with Karma of course which, in itself, could be discussed under the various misconceptions.

Ashers,

I'm so pleased that you remember our earlier discussion of this same subject. This question is frequently asked by people just becoming acquainted with Buddhism. The flame passed from candle to candle has been used as an explanation for a long time, and it is a good one.

The rebirth of a specific individual entity is called transmigration of souls. Transmigration of souls is far more prevalent in some other Eastern religions, like Hinduism. Both Jain and Buddhism rejected that notion and the idea of caste from their founding. In Buddhism there is no soul, nor, absent the Illusory Perceptual World, and separateness of being. When we die the illusion dissipates, but the effects of it continue ... reincarnation. This confuses a lot of people, but the difference isn't really all that subtle. Most Buddhists believe to some extent in reincarnation, but very few Buddhist scholars accept transmigration of souls.

The Tantric Schools of Tibet and the Himalaya region are a notable exception to the general rule. There the Dali Lama and certain other high ranking Buddhists are officially believed to be reborn conscious of past lives. Their reasoning is something like this: When people die, they confront the void, the Great Ineffable. Faced with the loss of their individuality, they cling to the Perceptual World and are confronted with a series of "demons" and other frightening visions that interfere with their return to Ultimate Reality. Those better prepared for death, can overcome most of their fright and their visions can become dreams of something similar to paradise. Both of these conditions are illusory, but temporary. For some who are especially Enlightened at death there is a choice of merging back into the peace of Ultimate Reality, or rebirth as Bodhistava dedicated to mitigating suffering and helping others caught up in the Illusory World along the path to enlightenment. This is a subtle and very technical bit of advanced Buddhist theology, and isn't followed much outside the Tantric Schools.

Speculation on first causes and what happens after individual death are distractions from the more productive effort to mitigate suffering. Far better to learn to meditate effectively, and to practice the fundamental tenants of our religion as constantly as possible. As pointed out on another recent Buddhist thread, Buddhism may appeal to intellectuals, but it is much more concerned with how we live in the illusory world of multiplicity.

The candle example came right to me as I currently have a moving picture centred on my desktop background which shows a set of candle's burning brightly, a beautiful image, no doubt about it. I think the use of terms like, "transmigration of souls", does confuse the matter somewhat, especially when you could throw "re-birth" into the mix as well. Thanks for the explanation of the Tantric schools.



I remember all of this vividly from reading 'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying', I agree though, it all seems slightly beside the point in terms of practicality and productive effort (for me anyway). I enjoyed reading that book immensely but I wasn't too sure what to take away from reading about the bardos. One thing though, Bawb mentioned the Buddha above, who talked of past lives. How does this impact on the topic? In what sense was he talking about past lives? I'm guessing this has something to do with levels of awareness or realisation and how they impact on our ideas of "lives" but I'm not too sure what to make of it.

The Buddha doesn't address the subject in the oldest texts, those that date from close to the time he lived. The earliest mentions that I know of come in the Mahayana Sanskrit sutras. When Mahayana developed the concept of the Bohdisatava a few hundreds of years later more attention was paid to fleshing-out doctrines dealing with life, and death. Theravadan Buddhism isn't particularly well adapted to popular large-scale religious congregations.

The Bodhisatva ideals were important in spreading Buddhism and making it popular with the laity and householders. Originally the doctrine was that each person will eventually follow the strict discipline laid down for Buddhist monks. Each of us is responsible for working out our own enlightenment by living as close to the Precepts as possible. That was great so long as Buddhism remained small, and almost all followers of the Buddhas Teaching were monks. With the concept that "merit" can be transferred from the Bodhisatva to mitigate the suffering of all sentient beings, Buddhism became much more accessible to householders and laymen. The Bohdisatava concept does have some basis in the oldest Pali texts, but that was never the real focus of the Buddha's Teachings. With Mahayana doctrines, Buddhism began to spread outward from India. That was a "good" thing, but the downside is that the purity of the original Teachings has given rise to many contending schools and sects.

As the Buddha lay dying with is closest followers in attendance, he was asked if there was anything he had neglected to talk about, or that needed clarifying. We are told he said nothing, but held out a flower to the disciples and died. That's the so-called Flower Sermon, and it is a significant foundation for Chan/Zen Buddhism, along with the Great Hear Sutra. Todays various Schools and Sects each have their own favorite sutras upon which their particular doctrines are based.

Very interesting, thanks. That all makes sense to me, I especially like the Flower Sermon for the same reasons I like the idea of 'Buddha Nature'. Food for thought, though I really should delve into the proper texts and explore a little more.

Ah yes, thanks guys.

Buddhism believes in the eternity of life. Life does not begin with birth nor end with death. Life is the active phase and death is the dormant phase. The causes we make in this life will determine our next life. I am a practitoner of the Nichiren sect Soka Gakkai

What happens when this World finally burns out; is that it - game over?

Not at all. Life is eternal. This world is only a tiny spec in an infinite universe. The historical Buddha reveal in his teachings that he has lived infinite lives throughout infinite worlds and that he first attained enlightenment in the unimaginably remote past in a world that does not resemble Earth.