What do you think of reincarnation tradition in vajrayana?

Discussion
21

I wish my memory was good enough as to recall suttas where the Buddha spoke about previous lives in this regard, but as you say, there are not that many.

I recall one where he tells Ananda about an incident in a town where they are visiting, this incident happened long time ago and it involves a King (or a prince) and his advisor. Both participants are Ananda and the Buddha in one of their previews lives.

Sometimes you see something like this MN57 :

“Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.

(You see this same form in MN60 which you have referenced)

In this text rebirth is described as something happening in this moment and also what we call reincarnation.

In the same sutta one can learn how this desire of rebirth in this very moment can lead to a reincarnation of the same nature if such desire does not stop when the body dies. It is the story about a naked ascetic who wants to be a dog and another who wants to be an ox.

The way I understand it, the idea of reincarnation is based on rebirth, with a change of body and supported by kamma, but they are not interchangeable terms, there is a big difference between them.

Best regards.

22

Firstly , one has to accept that
there Is previous life previous body , future life future body ,
without this understanding
do you think one
needs to cultivate ?
If the 12 DO explain birth of a life
is limited to this life only ,
does not make sense .
Surely , aging and death already
includes " sickness " ,
sickness happens to humans
and other beings.

The 12 DO are in line
with the 4 NT .
Birth aging (sickness) &
death in the 1 St NT .
Craving & clinging in the 2 NT .

< " THE FIRST NOBLE TRUTH
What is the Noble Truth
of Suffering?
Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, (sickness) is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get
what one wants is suffering: in short the five aggregates affected by clinging are suffering. " >

We can agree on not applying
reincarnation word.

But , what do you think of
Rebirth in vajrayana tradition ?
Such as the tulkus , Dalai Lama
and the Karmapa ?

23

Future lives may not include a body like this, remember the other 30 planes of existence.
One needs to cultivate because that is the end of dukkha.

Correct, 13 DO explains the cycle of rebirth, it is not limited to this life, but to all existence.

One can die without sickness. An emotion dies without sickness, the body can die without it too.

:slight_smile:

I think that if they are well developed beings who can actually decide their next rebirth (reincarnation), then this proposal makes sense. I will not make formal critics about them here, but there is a reason why I do not follow this tradition, I have my doubts about their spiritual path.

Even if they are well advanced beings, I don’t see the need to reincarnate like this, the Buddha reached nibbana and set the example, lets all follow this path and end suffering. We can also be an example for others, maybe they will follow.

Best regards.

1 Like
24

[quote=“James, post:17, topic:5580”]
The topic title is with regards
to Vajrayana tradition , not
only etymology or EBTs , right ?
[/quote]My apologies, the OP made it look like to me, that it was a question about the different between the two words, alone.

The Dalai Lama belongs to the Gelug school, who posit a “seed body”, a “gross body” and a “subtle body” (“gross” doesn’t mean “disgusting” here necessarily, also these three bodies are shared, somewhat in different forms, with Advaita, I believe, and more schools than just the Gelug may believe in them). The gross body is essentially a “normal” being of any sort (afaik), and the subtle body lacks the features that define the gross body (afaik), as its only function is a container of karma, or something of the like.

I’d recommend not taking my word alone, and reading more, but here is the Dalai Lama speaking about the gross and subtle bodies (he calls them minds/consciousnesses).

25

I really disagree! And the fact that you are quoting Hindu texts to support your claims for the definitions of English words seems quite bizarre.

If you want to know what an English word means to the English speaking population I honestly think that English dictionaries are the best place to turn, and the Oxford dictionaries are quite possibly the best choice. As I have shown above, no such distinction is found. And the definitions even refer to each other, thus refuting any claim of categorical difference between the two words.

This seems to be a case of imposing definitions onto the words rather than considering what they actually mean.

Now regarding the Tibetan tulku system, I do not think that is out of line with the EBT particularly. If anyone thinks it is, I would be interested to hear specifically why. It is no more about ‘souls’ than the idea of the Buddha or Devadatta being reborn/reincarnated in another body, whatever realm that be in.

And on the topic of realms, yes the Tibetans teach about 6 realms, the human realm being one of them, then animals, hungry ghosts etc. etc. And yes they say you can be reborn/reincarnated in any of them. The reason you don’t usually hear of great Lamas being reborn in other realms is because they are supposed to be good practitioners! And it is said that when you train your mind a lot then you can maintain some level of influence on where you are reborn.

I have met some people who have remembered their past lives, including some who had high positions in their last lives. It seems these memories are often held until about the age of 5 or so and then forgotten.

It does make sense to me that these memories are more likely to occur when you have done more mind training in your former life.

Of course this brings into question what ‘you’ means. I would say the you you were and the you you are now are quite different! But that there is some kind of continuity. And that this is the Tibetan view also, as I understand it. And I do not see this being out of line with the EBT, but I welcome any comments.

2 Likes
26

In EBTs you mostly (I just don’t say only because I may be missing a sutta) see the Buddha recollecting specific past births.

The knowledge of past lives is as well one of the three tevijja an awakened disciple may gain access to - and the Buddha himself gained - as the threshold to the cessation of suffering in crossed. See Iti99 or DN13.

This knowledge’s role is to give one’s heart final and definitive momentum to natural and impersonal the revulsion and dispassion-fueled process destruction of the fetters. See AN10.3, AN11.2 and SN12.23

The tulku institution doesn’t have much to do with that. It seems to me as a late innovation (900-800 years old) of Tibetan Buddhism to address issues of material inheritance and maintenance of doctrinal branches.

27

MN 120 directly supports intentional rebirth into certain social classes of people and classes of beings, given sufficient development of certain good qualities. It doesn’t necessarily support having the power to choose anything more specific than that. But who knows? I try to keep an open mind about these things. So the Vajrayana “reincarnation tradition” certainly may have some degree of legitimacy from an EBT view. But I don’t doubt there have been and are charlatans who take advantage of these traditions.

3 Likes
29

As an institution yes it may be about that old. And yes it may be at least in part about addressing issues of material inheritance and maintenance of doctrinal branches. However, that alone does not put it in contradiction to the EBT, in my opinion. Do you have anything to suggest otherwise?

30

Sure, naturally. And there are also, it would seem, many cases where someone who is let’s say ‘surely not’ the genuine reincarnation, being recognised as such, for good reasons. Or I could say ‘skilful’ (kusala) reasons. For example someone who is just a bright, good young person, can be recognised as a tulku, and then take on the responsibility of training in the practice and doctrinal lineage of a specific tradition, and become the ‘holder’ of that tradition. That can give that person great motivation for the sake of others (compassion and loving kindness) to train well, to be “diligent, ardent, and resolute” as the Buddha said, and embody those qualities of the past masters in that tulku line. That is not so dissimilar in practical terms to the groups of monks who would have been responsible for the oral transmission of groups of texts from the nikāyas before the teachings were written down, for example. Or the continuation of meditation methods.

It seems to have worked quite well for the safeguarding of dhamma practice in Tibet.

1 Like
31

[quote=“gnlaera, post:26, topic:5580”]
In EBTs you mostly (I just don’t say only because I may be missing a sutta) see the Buddha recollecting specific past births.[/quote]

This idea of ‘births’ again can be subject to alternate interpretation. For example, ‘pubbe nivasa’ in these passages certainly does not translate as “past lives” because “nivasa” does not mean “lives”.

When I posted about literal past life reincarnation suttas, I was referring to when the Buddha declares: “I was that chariotmaker”, etc, or Mogallana says: “I was Mara hundreds of years ago”. This type of sutta cannot have an alternative interpretation. They are literal reincarnation.

OK. Thanks. I was just pointing out how there are doctrines of reincarnation that appear completely divorced from kamma. Where as in the EBTs, the Buddha always links ‘rebirth’ with ‘kamma’, such as telling a soldier in SN 42.3 that those who engage in war have rebirth as an animal or in hell.

This is the difference between the Buddha & Krishna in the Bhagavat Gita. Krishna teaches about a reincarnation divorced from kamma.

@Senryu The above is an example of what I was attempting to say. For Buddha, a good rebirth is dependent on having certain good qualities. Where as often in Western Buddhism today, many Westerners are fundamentalist about ‘re-birth’ and engage in unwholesome actions to defend & promote their fundamentalist beliefs, which is a contradiction because good kamma leads to a good rebirth rather than faith in rebirth leads to a good rebirth.

Kind regards :seedling:

32

One would have to stretch quite a lot what is found in EBTs to support the concept of a lineage of Dhamma masters who are reborn lifetime after lifetime just to carry on a point of view or traditional interpretation of the teachings - i.e. the reincarnation-based authority tradition of Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism the thread is supposedly about.

I also flag that the circumstances around which the parajika #4 was made necessary sound similar to what the whole tulku institution seems to be aimed at facilitating: individuals falsely claiming for themselves super-human qualities with the explicit or implicit goal of keeping steady the supply of the four requisites (and likely wealth) to themselves.

Maybe now that people are getting smarter and more easily accessing translations of the EBTs it is possible that such so-called tulkus will start claiming for themselves the attainment of stream-entry or similar things .

If that happens, we better make sure to point them that if they were still living under the training rules established by the Buddha those false claims would result in their expelling from the Sangha right on the spot! :smile:

1 Like
33

Yes, that makes sense. It does not make sense (to me) however, to project those differences onto the two English words. That is a difference of doctrine, but the two English words have no inherent attribution to specifically one or the other doctrine, which is why I am reasoning that both English words can not incorrectly be ascribed to both doctrines. Thus the difference needs to be explained, not merely signified by the two different words on the assumption that the English speaking people attribute such a doctrinal difference to those two English words, since the English dictionary indicates otherwise, as does our evidence from the widespread use of the term ‘reincarnation’ to signify the Buddhist concept entirely connected with kamma, such as in Tibetan Buddhism.

34

I have to say I am not sure if I know anything about Western Buddhism. I’m trained in Tibetan Buddhism and Theravada. I was speaking on that basis.

35

You seem to have misunderstood what the tulku system does. Please see above where I explain some of the issue. It is certainly not how you have just described it!

36

You are assuming that their claims are false.
Above I mentioned that there may be some cases where it is false. That however only brings into question truthfulness, not the actual principle of tulkus reincarnating and being recognised. So that is not a valid argument against the principle, or evidence that the principle is out of line with the EBTs.

While the ethics of those claims which are false could be discussed, I think that will be too off topic for me just now so I will leave that.[quote=“Gabriel_L, post:32, topic:5580”]
Maybe now that people are getting smarter and more easily accessing translations of the EBTs it is possible that such so-called tulkus will start claiming for themselves the attainment of stream-entry or similar things .

If that happens, we better make sure to point them that if they were still living under the training rules established by the Buddha those false claims would result in their expelling from the Sangha right on the spot! :smile:
[/quote]

You sounds like you may be anti-Tibetan Buddhism. Is that the case? The rule which you just mentioned ( parajika #4) is about false claims. Why do you assume that such people are making false claims? In fact, those people you have mentioned are merely hypothetical people, and yet you accuse them of making false claims. This comes across as an extreme bias against any tulkus and an assumption that none of them could be stream enterers - an apparently highly sectarian view. Was that your intention?

38

Let’s leave the polemics aside and instead quote what an actual individual who holds a tulku title once said about the topic:

“And now, I personally think that to hold that culture, institutionalized Tulku. That culture is dying; it’s not going to work anymore. And even if it… And if it doesn’t work, I think it’s almost for the better because this tulku, it’s going to… If the Tibetans are not careful, this Tulku system is going to ruin Buddhism. At the end of the day Buddhism is more important [than] Tulku system, who cares about Tulku… [and] what happens to them.[6]”
– Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, who is considered to be the third “iteration” or incarnation of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo

Now, back to the topic, acknowledging that the pre-anagami states found in EBTs may allow for multiple lifetimes prior to the disappearance from the (lower) human realms as the path unfolds, I created a separate topic to discuss what EBTs have to say about how could someone at that stage be identified.

I think that may be the closest thing to a well intended tulku - mind nevertheless that EBTs suggest there is a seven lifetimes/reincarnations limit to the pre-anagami attainments. That could be an issue for most the individuals currently assumed as tulkus: with the institution’s age at 800-900 years, most of them are at the 10+ reincarnation! :cold_sweat:

Last but not least, and for the record, note that my first contact with Buddhism was through khenpos and lamas from Karma Kagyu. And it was the polemics of who is the legitimate Karmapa amidst the Karmapa controversy that opened my eyes to how troublesome is the concept and dubious the ultimate motives of the tulku institution as a whole. Karmapa tchyen no! :anjal:

1 Like
39

Don’t you worry James
I mean no harm
And only have friendliness and kindness
to tulkus, non-tulkus, all beings in all four directions
above and below. :heart_eyes:

I just don’t understand
how the concept of tulku

  • which is the foundation stone of Tibetan schools -
    can be supported by anything found in the
    earliest strata of the Teachings
    as preserved in Pali and Chinese.

Mind nevertheless
that it was you
who asked what we think about it :wink:

All I did wast to put in words my thoughts
It is now your turn to respect and accept
that sometimes people may not agree with you.

Some people like apples :apple:
others like pineapples. :pineapple:

Be well! :anjal:

1 Like
41

It does make sense because not all Buddhists take the word “birth” in the Pali suttas to only mean “physical birth” and because not all Buddhists regard the “human”, “godly”, “animal”, “ghost” & “hell” realms to refer to different physical planes.

In other words, believing in “re-birth” does not mean you believe in “reincarnation” because you can believe in a “re-birth” that only happens psychologically, during one life-time, many times in that life-time, even many times in one day.

Every Buddhist must believe in “re-birth”. To not believe in “re-birth” or results of kamma is is wrong view (MN 117). But every Buddhist does not have to believe in “reincarnation” because “re-birth” does not have to mean another life in the future after the termination of the present life.

In the Pali suttas, it is quite clear words such as “animal talk” do not refer to literally making noises the same as a four -legged animal. There are many suttas where the realms of “re-birth” appear to obviously refer to mental states in this current life.

Vajyrayana reincarnation can only have one meaning where as Pali rebirth can have two meanings.

:seedling:

42

Is the life-to-life rebirth (=reincarnation) not fundamentally a part of Early Buddhism? It was my impression that scholars such as Gombrich find that there is no ambiguity there, and that the Buddha’s teachings are totally integrated with that view. Is that not the whole point of enlightenment also? To escape that literal rebirth process?

And if you put a ‘must’ on one EB belief, why not put it on all, or at least on such a fundamentally important aspect of the doctrine?

43

Gombrich is not even a Buddhist. Buddhists are advised to take refuge in the Noble Sangha rather than in non-Buddhists. If what you posted is really true, then Gombrich is clearly mistaken.

The ‘beliefs’ or 'views" I was referring to are listed in MN 117 therefore it may not include every idea that happened to find its way into the EBTs.

‘Re-birth’ is not a ‘belief’. It is a knowable reality. That wholesome actions lead to a ‘happy’ or ‘heavenly’ state & unwholesome actions lead to a ‘hellish’ or state of ‘deprivation’ is a reality rather than a belief. If you optionally chose to extend this reality to after the termination of life, you can. But if you exclude this reality from the current life, I personally say you are very mistaken.

The problem with the physical interpretation of the follow verse is it excludes the operation of kammic results in the current life.

When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the passing away and reappearance of beings. With the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate. I understood how beings pass on according to their actions thus: ‘These worthy beings who were ill conducted in body, speech, and mind, revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who were well conducted in body, speech, and mind, not revilers of noble ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a good destination, even in the heavenly world.’ Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and I understood how beings pass on according to their actions. MN 4

As I previously posted, the words ‘birth’ (‘jati’) & ‘death’ (‘marana’) appear to not always be ‘physical’ in the EBTs. If Gombrich does not discern this, then he must not be a very good scholar.

For example, the two verses below, if interpreted ‘physically’, state the arahant does not die but the non-arahant dies, which is the opposite of the general idea Buddhists have about ‘re-birth’.

Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already. Dhp21

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn? MN 140