I’ve thought for a long time that the semantic hairsplitting over “rebirth” vs. “reincarnation” was silly and only added to unnecessary confusion. I’m glad to see other people here agree. The important thing is to carefully understand and describe the philosophical difference between Buddhism and other religious frameworks for rebirth/reincarnation, not argue over linguistics in English (which the Buddha didn’t even speak).
5 Likes
it can be argued this is not “silly” with quite reasons.
- The philosophical differences couldn’t be understood when different words endowed with different meanings and origins, all can be interchanged without criteria.
- The argument of a previous philosophical knowledge (“we know we are talking about”) is not good, specially for a first approach to Buddhist texts.
- The use of different words can difficult the understanding of several texts. In example, this dialogue from the Milindapahna:
“Is there any being who transmigrates from this body to another?”
“No there is not.”
This explanation from V.Bhikkhu Pesala is very right:
An Explanation of Rebirth
“Theravada Buddhists do not use the terms ‘transmigration’ or ‘reincarnation’ because both of these expressions imply the existence of a permanent soul or self, which is contrary to the Buddha’s teaching of not-self (anatta). We prefer to use the term ‘rebirth.’”
I will explain the distinction between the Buddhist doctrine of ‘rebirth’ and the Hindu doctrine of ‘transmigration’ — it is an important point, and one that is often misunderstood. This is hardly surprising, since it is through not understanding the nature of a person or being, a self or soul, that we have all wandered so long in the cycle of birth and death. The Buddha’s teaching of not-self and rebirth was a radical departure from the theory of transmigration of souls that was commonly held at his time. Unless one studies carefully, or practises insight meditation with a strong commitment, one can easily misunderstan2d this teaching. Generally, people will err on the side of eternalism, or on the side annihilationism, instead of seeing the Middle Path of Buddhism."
Bhikkhu Pesala - An Explanation of Rebirth
An Explanation of Rebirth
Transmigration and Reincarnation are words with origin and meaning in the migration of souls.
Rebirth is a word with origin and meaning in a birth happening two or more times, without other pressuposition.
This can be applied also in biology, history or whatever context sugesting a new birth of something. This cannot be applied with transmigration or reincarnation because it becomes a non-sense.
Try it:
- “Look that Transmigration of the forest after the fire.”
- “Learn about the Reincarnation of social turmoils in the 60’s.”
- “It was the last Reincarnation of the Buddha”
Are wrong terms for that purpose. As happens with the use of “transmigration” and “reincarnation” in Buddhism.
- “Look that Rebirth of the forest after the fire.”
- “Learn about the Rebirth of social turmoils in the 60’s.”
- “It was the last Rebirth of the Buddha”
that’s right. Other no.
Thanks everyone, for this discussion. Most vital that we try to arrive at an understanding of rebirth, as imperfect as that understanding might be for many of us. I favour the term rebirth having heard the term reincarnation used by certain occult groups to describe the process of a distinct and permanent ‘self’ transmigrating through time. So the term is too readily identified with that kind of process. Looking as deeply as I can, with an ordained teacher’s help, at the intricate process involved with each cognitive moment, I am astounded at the level of deep insight that allowed those enlightened beings to see into the very substance of the process that ultimately results in rebirth.
1 Like
In the Madhyama Agama sutra 62 titled “The Discourse on King Bimbisāra Meeting the Buddha” (no Pali paralel, but it has a Sanskrit version recorded in Mahavastu), it is said:
Then the citizens of Magadha thought:
If material form is impermanent, if feeling . . . perception . . . volitional formations . . . consciousness is impermanent, then who lives and who experiences suffering and happiness?
The World-honored One, knowing the thoughts of the citizens of Magadha, told the monks:
An ignorant worldling, one who is not learned, regards himself as “I am a self” and is attached to that self. However, there is no self; there is nothing that belongs to a self; [all this] is empty of a self and empty of anything that belongs to a self. When phenomena arise, they arise; when phenomena cease, they cease. All this is [just] a combination of causes and conditions, giving rise to suffering. If the causes and conditions were not present, then all suffering would cease. It is because of the combination of causes and conditions that living beings continue and all phenomena arise. The Tathāgata, having seen all living beings continuously arising, declares: There is birth and there is death. With the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses human [vision], I see beings as they die and are reborn handsome or ugly, excellent or not excellent, as they come and go between good or bad realms of existence, in accordance with their [previous] deeds. I see this as it really is. If these living beings were ill behaved in body, speech, and mind, if they reviled noble ones, held wrong views, and undertook actions [based on] wrong views, then because of these causes and conditions, at the breaking up of the body, after death, they will certainly go to a bad realm of existence, [even] being born in hell. If [however] these living beings were well behaved in body, speech, and mind, if they did not revile noble ones, held right views, and undertook actions [based on] right views, then because of these causes and conditions, at the breaking up of the body, after death, they will certainly go to a good realm of existence, [even] to a heavenly realm.
Knowing that it is thus for them, I do not say to them, “It is the self that can feel, can talk, that gives teachings, that undertakes development, that teaches development, that experiences the fruits of good or evil actions here and there.” Herein, some may think, “This does not match; this cannot stand.”
[But despite their objections] these processes take place in accordance
with Dharma: Because of this, that arises; if this cause is not present, that does not arise. Because this exists, that exists; if this ceases, that ceases. That is to say: with ignorance as condition there are volitional formations; (and so on up to) with birth as condition there are old age and death. If ignorance ceases, volitional formations cease; (and so on up to) if birth ceases, old age and death cease.
2 Likes
The reason given to prefer for reincarnation: to affirm that you will exist in the future
The reason given to prefer rebirth: not affirming that you will exist in the future, while also not affirming you will not exist in the future.