A few questions about reincarnation and karma, and related beliefs

So I was thinking, in Hinduism and Buddhism and similar belief systems, memories aren't generally retained between reincarnations, are they? Meaning that the results of one person's bad actions are essentially visited upon another unborn creature. So doesn't that mean, if a person is opposed to suffering, that the only ethical course of action is to escape the cycle of reincarnation, in order to avoid perpetuating further suffering?

Also, how does the conception of suffering as a fundamental part of reality affect a person's view of the world? Do all these religions regard the material world as bleak, for instance?

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Well, the world is sorta bleak.

Got good stuff in it, but there's plenty of natural suffering to go along with the deal. And those in power make it sure to make life miserable for the rest of us.

Can't really say that living is a net negative, because there's no bottom line to compare to. Anyway, two positions are available: Make the most of life as many times as you get one, or try to escape suffering altogether by breaking the cycle.

Saying which position is morally superior is above my paygrade.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

actually yes. nirvana, the main goal of Buddhism is basically gaining the ability to stop being reborn and kind of hover above life and death with no personality or any kind of needs

edited 15th May '11 1:47:57 PM by nnokwoodeye

Well, you do actually remember previous lives between reincarnations, it's just during your life that you don't remember. So it isn't exactly visited on an innocent.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Oh, yes, I see the distinction.

But an unsuspecting individual who is functionally distinct for the duration of their lifespan, nevertheless?

Also, am I right in thinking that religions of this nature typically lack any equivalent to the Apocalypse, Ragnarok, etc. - that is, the whole universe is cyclical?

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Well, that's the whole point of the belief in everlasting, always reborn souls, isn't it? That it's in fact not another person. I mean, one could argue about that, philosophically, but I'd just see it as a religious postulate. It's the same person because the religious concept says so, just like we'll always be happy in heaven because the Christian concept of it says so, nevermind whether that is psychologically possible.

Buddhism really wouldn't work if the world was not seen as bleak. I mean, no true death? Always being reborn! I'd find that awesome! Yet, Buddhists want to escape that, and that 'Nirvana' does sound like true death to me... and they see that as the ultimate goal. Really, IMO, that only works if the world is seen as bleak. Actual Buddhists who don't see the world as bleak may correct me there

edited 16th May '11 2:00:17 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

I've known Buddhists that didn't want to achieve enlightenment at all. As long as they keep getting reasonably good lives, they'd rather keep living.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I'll often wondered about the finer points with reincarnation. Can you come back as say a bacterial? if so what happens when it divides?

hashtagsarestupid

What's the point to reincarnation if your memories don't go with you?

To say a person is made up of more than their memories never made sense to me, since that's exactly why people are who they are, since their unique experiences differ from person to person.

To believe in a reincarnation that puts forth that memories don't transfer is confusing.

People are more than their memories; genetics and other things are with you from when you develop in the womb. Of course, in reincarnation you'd lose those, too.

What's always bothered me about the new-agey version of reincarnation is that people always seem determined to find out about their previous lives and go back to relive them, or fix them. You know, "I think this man/woman must be my soulmate. I'm sure we were lovers in a previous life!"

edited 16th May '11 4:45:27 AM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

Yeah that bugs me too, have you noticed that everyone past live is some famous like Alexander The great or something? Not some nobody who just cleaned his sandals.

edited 16th May '11 4:06:46 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

There are more people alive today who claim to have died on the Titanic than passangers on the ship.

Life's Gonna Suck When You Grow Up... But Is It That Great Now?... Also I'm Skylark2 now.

Well I don't know how it works. Maybe every passenger contained a total of Five souls each?

Perhaps that's why it sunk, it was overloaded

edited 16th May '11 5:15:43 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

The one thing about fuzzy "new-agey" reincarnation believers*

is that most of them — most of those I ever came in contact, definitely, but it seems more widespread than that — claim that their previous reincarnation was

• Human;
• Of their same gender;
• An exceptional person under some point of view — if not a famous historic figure, at least a nobleman/woman or a powerful warrior or someone who had some role in some sort of important event.

From a purely statistical point of view that's, well, kind of improbable: where are all the people whose previous incarnation was "a pigeon (opposite gender) that shat on a few statues and then got hit by a SUV?"

edited 16th May '11 5:18:41 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I haven't come across that so much... mainly the ones who seemed convinved that everything they did or had happen to them was somehow due to their actions in a previous life.

I'm curious as to what believers in the traditional reincarnation think of these industries.

Be not afraid...

if I understand Buddhism correctly, there is no "soul" the way we understand it. nothing is transferred by reincarnation except karma. the new being who received it is just the universe reaction to the death of the previous being.

am I making sense here?

edited 16th May '11 6:37:35 AM by nnokwoodeye

Buddhist in the house...

Now then...Let's clear things up shall we? Anatta refers to no one having a static, never changing and permanent self. Everything ends. You as a whole or in small bits are no different. We do have what one could consider souls though. Souls in Buddhism are a constant stream of varying states of consciousness that are always changing. This stream is what moves on in the next life. Most people do not retain their memories of their past lives and find it very hard to get them back apparently.

The reason for this seems to partly be that we are not made up of one soul. Our current soul is the result of the various bits of a soul mixing up together to create a new soul. We retain some of the skills, weaknesses, likes, dislikes, and memories of those various things we are made up of.

Now even if you were to remember all your past lives you cannot say that you are that person anymore. It is like a more extreme example of what happens to your child self. The child self is you, but not really you. She is what made you who you are today, but you will never be that person again. Apply that to your entire life and your next one and you have the basic idea.

Now the reason you are reborn is because you have kamma tying you down to the cycle of Samsara. We have a rather neat series of very short events that lead to a rebirth. Kamma leads to thought which leads to desire which leads to rebirth or some such. Neat imagery.

Kamma also dictates where you are born in the next life and some kamma will come to fruition in this next life. This does not mean that you are doomed to live out a future that is predetermined. You have choices in the matter on how to react to the fruits of your kamma and choices of what new kamma to build or work off.

There are six realms one can be born in. The one you are in now is the human realm. It is the one most suitable to reaching Enlightenment.

Kamma is a universal law by the way. It is not divine punishment and the gods themselves have their own kamma and are bound to its rules. Kamma takes into account circumstance, intention, action, and result meaning that you could kill someone in self defense without meaning to and get away with less negative kamma than someone who willfully killed someone for revenge.

Now on the bleakness of the world and Buddhism. Do I believe that world is truly terrible and nothing else? No. Not at all. There are good things and good feelings in the world. Sadly those things are transient and for them to exist there must be suffering. One cannot have Dukkha without Sukkha. The only escape from Dukkha is true death, Parinibbana, which is an escape from Sukkha. I view it like an eternal rest. After going through it all you are finally allowed to sleep for as long as you want. Buddhism is not a pessimistic "YOU CAN NEVER BE HAPPY EVER" religion so much as a self help religion that reminds one to be realistic about the world. It isn't all rainbows and permanent awesome.

Also let us define Sukkha and Dukkha. These often get translated as suffering and happiness which is not as broad as the terms are truly defined. Dukkha is any physical or emotional pain no matter how small or how large. This includes the slight disease and anxieties you feel when not satisfying wants or needs. Sukkha is any physical or emotional joy or satisfaction no matter how small or large. So this includes simple contentment as well as that very powerful feeling we normally associate with happiness.

It is my belief that the world cannot function without Dukkha not that Dukkha of the highest degree is always crushing you. Can you imagine a world of beings with no desires or attachments? No drive to feed themselves or procreate? Things just wouldn't work as a whole. We work to detach ourselves from that a bit and learn some self control so we can find Nibbana in this life and eventually reach Parinibbana. A true calm and understanding of things. However one can get attached to Nibbana in this life since it feels 'nice'.

As for what I think of the New Agey people who take these beliefs: I rather dislike these people's beliefs on the subject as well as most other things they take from Buddhism. A lot. Most Buddhists I know are similar in my experience in that they dislike it as we feel that they are not understanding it. Not getting it. Not true to The Dhamma as it was and is taught. That they are taking it and making it into something hip and cool and faddish. We do not dislike the people themselves, the Buddhists I know, but we think them silly.

edited 16th May '11 7:23:29 AM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Memories are not what makes a person; that's also why the transhumanist ideas of "uploading" people is nonsense. That would merely create a copy of you, even if all the memories are retained. So, yes. People are not defined by their memories.

How is that any desirable?

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Because while I love this life thing I don't think I could do it forever. Forever is a long fucking time. If I need to sleep at the end of a day I will probably need to sleep after the end of several lives. The idea seems comforting to me. Finally. True peace and rest for all eternity.

I also fear it. Greatly. Because I love life and I am attached to it. I desire to live for as long as I can with the best life that I can enjoying all number of pleasures.

It is, according to Buddhism, possible to leave true death if want ever springs up again. It is something that can happen to Arahats who aren't Buddhas. The Buddhas just leave and stay gone forever. Arahats have not reached their level of perfection though and as such can falter back to Samsara even after leaving it.

Other sects seem to believe in something more akin to a traditional view of Heaven with things like Amitabha's Pure Land. A LAND OF ETERNAL BLISS AND AWESOME THAT DOESN'T SUCK LIKE THE DEVA REALM.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Question — not trying to attack your beliefs, only to understand how they work. What about a world of beings with intense desires and attachments, far greater than ours in fact, which however always get fulfilled?

One in which such desires and attachments grow ever greater and greater, and in doing so — and in being fulfilled — bring the world that they love and belong to to higher and higher levels of perfection? One in which even the past sufferings of these beings, if there have ever been any, acquire meaning and significance and, if I can use the term, holiness?

I guess you think this just plain impossible? Or is there some reason why you'd consider this "true death" preferable to it?

edited 16th May '11 7:53:58 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Reminds me of this one novel I found where this mild-mannered guy turned out to be the reincarnation of Hitler. Had to go into hiding to avoid angry mobs.

♭What.

All right then...Buddhism has two things that sort of fit this description of yours. The first and by far most common with the various branches and sects is the Deva realm. The Deva realm is essentially Heaven. It is a land where the gods live in bliss. They help humanity from time to time with their god powers as well. Devas tend to have trouble reaching Enlightenment however because they do not understand Dukkha quite like humans do. They lack empathy but always feel really fucking awesome. Time in the Deva realm is temporary. Like all realms. It's a long time, but in the end you are doomed to die and bound by your kamma. It's a reward for being good, but it's also a weakness.

The main goal of Buddhism is to avoid both supreme bliss and supreme pain. It is the Middle Path through and through.

The other thing this sounds like a Pure Land. Pure Lands are the abodes of celestial Buddhas. Buddhas who happen to be gods and rule over a pureland. Amitabha is one such Buddha and Shin Pure Land teaches that humans are basically so fucked up they have next to no chance to achieving Parinibbana. Instead they should work on being nice people with faith in Amitabha as they wait for the day he takes us all to his Pure Land to live happily forever more. Because you weren't good enough to reach Parinibbana. It's a sort of consolation prize it seems. Being that I am Theravadan and have never liked the idea of a savior who will save his otherwise hopeless followers it is clear that I do not place any stock in this or find it preferable to true death.

As for why I do not like it...It just makes no damned sense to me. People can't wait for people to save and help them. They have to save themselves. Sure you can get help and support but at the end of things it is up to you to do shit. If you don't want it and don't do it then you aren't going to get it. My mother is an example. I would love to help her and she whines and moans about how much her life sucks. She lacks the will to actually try and it is rather clear that she does not want to be helped. She may in a way but she does not wholly and truly want it. As such no one in our family is capable of really helping her. She won't let us. It's rather sad really...That and I find it rather insulting to living beings. Are we flawed? Hell fucking yeah we are. Are we so pathetic that most of us are literally incapable of helping ourselves? I doubt this. I also find it insulting towards those who work their asses off for such things. I'd rather keep pressing the cosmic reset button and do it myself than not get it done and have flying weirdo with big ears come down and save me with his space powers.

It just in my opinion does not fit with reality and if there is one thing I like about Buddhism is that generally the thing slides in pretty well with reality. Sure things like rebirth cause some upsets, but those upsets also follow a certain logic that I feel works well with what we already know about how things work.

Do I believe in all this fancy metaphysical hoobly hah though? No. I am agnostic on this issue and don't feel I should go around making assumptions about things I do not know the truth of and have no proof for just because I think it looks sound. These things however are possibilities. I am not sure what happens after death. Personally I am placing my bets on it just ending. This is one reason I find the whole Parinibbana thing preferable to Heaven along with my whole "I MUST REST AND ESCAPE THIS SHIT" thing. It feels realistic to me. If it turns out there is an afterlife then cool. There is one. Let's hope I was awesome enough to get into Heaven and that "Only those with faith in ENTER PERSON OR DEITY'S NAME HERE can be saved" thing is complete bullshit. If it turns out there is rebirth then hey...guess who's pushing the generate new character button? If not...I will have come to terms with my mortality and lived a good life prior to everything going blank. If that last thing is true then my life is utterly pointless. I ain't got anything better to do though so...living. These beliefs too are just assumptions without proof however.

In the end honestly I think it is best that I just not give a shit.

edited 16th May '11 1:03:53 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Uh, OK. Neither of the two ideas looks all that close to what I meant, and I must say that I think that this whole "doing it yourself vs. waiting for someone to save you" thing is perhaps a bit of a false dichotomy, but I'd better not derail this thread any further.

Well, thanks for the explanation!

edited 16th May '11 1:27:20 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Yeah, thanks for clearing that up.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Then what did you mean? If not that I honestly have no idea.

I am sure I worded it badly but it is less "Waiting for someone to save you" but more "Doing the best you can and the best you can just isn't enough so you have to BELIEVE and one day you will be saved by SPACE BUDDHA because you believed and did good shit," where my issues with things like Shin Pure Land and certain forms of Christianity come into play. I do not think that they are just waiting most of them. They are working, but believe that they must have faith in order to make it to this wonderful thing.

And that is what bothers me. That you will apparently never be good enough. That most living beings won't and that most need a savior from some higher plane of existence and that they need to have faith in this being to be liberated. Were we more capable of it ourselves or if we didn't need to believe in and worship this being I think I would be more comfortable with the idea of salvation powers.

This why I am Thai Theravadan it seems and not Shin Pure Land or some similar thing. I can't stand the idea of "Faith in Deity X+Good works=Your only real chance of making it in the great cosmic game". I have a reset button and I will keep pressing it until I do it without worshiping Deity X.

Unless it really is my only way out in which case...TO NARAKA. At least I could hope I would have the strength to willingly choose that. So that I could live up to my morals that say that such things aren't fair and therefore not desirable in any form.

edited 16th May '11 3:42:51 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah