[uncoodync]

I have identified myself as an agnostic for my entire adult life, with little apology for the disdain I felt for organized religions. As I study more and more, I realize that I most align myself with the Buddhist philosophies and teachings. I find myself in a position in which I do not believe in reincarnation, however, I love just about everything else I am encountering over the last few months of reading, studying and meditating on.
Can you ever call yourself a Buddhist and not believe in reincarnation? Does not believing in such offend the most devout Buddhist philosophers and teachers?
I am not interested in the title of 'Buddhist', and could easily go through life as an agnostic who most aligns himself with the teachings of Buddha. I am feeling this topic out due tot he fact that I wish to begin learning from a teacher, and do not wish to offend anyone or begin this quest misinformed.
All thoughts appreciated....
Thanks!

- kereD

[ftpsoft]

kereD,

The Dalai Lama advises that one does not have to be a Buddist to improve their lives through practice. You can reap the benefits of practice without commiting to all the tenets of a particular school of thought. HHDL also says that you should not call yourself a Buddist if you do not agree with all the tenets. I do not have a link, since this is from HHDL's book, "Becoming Enlightened."
I think you have the right idea.

[9wQlZkIj]

HHDL also says that you should not call yourself a Buddist if you do not agree with all the tenets

Its worth noting that the Dalai Lama isn't the head of Buddhism and therefore isn't world spokesperson for all Buddhist teachers and traditions .

[DoroKickcrofe]

I find myself in a position in which I do not believe in reincarnation

Reincarnation is a subject of a lot of speculation and dispute among Buddhists themselves and frankly I don't think it is relevant to nibbana at all.

[bDvYaQfM]

Its worth noting that the Dalai Lama isn't the head of Buddhism and therefore isn't world spokesperson for all Buddhist teachers and traditions .

Would other Buddist leaders disagree with with the Dalai Lama here?

[affewheillMapew]

I find myself in a position in which I do not believe in reincarnation

Here's a comment from Ajahn Sumedho an abbot with the Theravada Thai Forest tradition in his book 'The Sound of Silence'.


“Rebirth,” like “reincarnation,” is a term that’s used generally referring to having gone through a series of different lives, and then there are various views about whether once you get reincarnated into human form where you can go, become a frog again or something like that. I was teaching a retreat in Australia at the Theosophical Society, where people’s views were split. Some held that once you made it to the human level you can’t slide back into a lesser animal one, whereas others insisted that you could. But the truth of the matter is, nobody really knows.

The historical Buddha refered to previous lives in the scriptures and things like this, but for me these things are speculative. Maybe you can remember previous lives, but I have no such memory. So all I know is from the here and now. We’re talking about direct knowing rather than Buddhist theory or Buddhist doctrine.

[Eh085zE7]

Would other Buddist leaders disagree with with the Dalai Lama here?

I'm afraid I'm not the spokesperson for Buddhist leaders, I'm just pointing out that the Dalai Lama isn't the head of Buddhism or even of Tibetan Buddhism, he was the political leader of Tibet.

Teachers vary in their methods even within Tibetan Buddhism. I remember a Tibetan teacher responding to someone who said they didn't believe in rebirth with an unexpected reply of: "Don't worry about other lives - this is the one that counts !"


.

[AbeldeldepBug]

Thank you all for the replies.

I would point out that I know of many people who call themselves Buddhist, but engage in many activities that would be antithetical to the traditional Buddhist teachings. Maybe this is what has led to some confusion, on my part.

Since I am utilizing these teachings as a way to be a better human being, rather than find some type of saving or healing, is being a 'Buddhist' that important? What if it really does work out, and I do become a better person... wouldn't it be a great credit to the philosophy to be labeled as such?

Which schools of Buddhism are more open to differing views on this topic? I ask so that I may choose a course of study that is more pertinent to my current philosophy, even though I am open to a natural evolution of many of my beliefs. Also, I am very cognizant of not offending anyone who may hold these beliefs in a more puritanical light than others.

Thanks!

kereD

[iiilizium]

Kered,
I am not aware of neither have I experienced a Buddhist practitioner being offended by another's belief in any aspect of Lord Buddha's teachings (or alleged teachings) If it is sincere and honest.

Vanuatu,
His Holiness is not a representative for all Buddhists nor do I believe he would want to be.
However what he said there seems innocuous enough.
I must add that I hold him in deep respect.

[st01en_lox]

Which schools of Buddhism are more open to differing views on this topic? I ask so that I may choose a course of study that is more pertinent to my current philosophy, even though I am open to a natural evolution of many of my beliefs. Also, I am very cognizant of not offending anyone who may hold these beliefs in a more puritanical light than others.

kereD

Hi Kered,

Don't worry too much about 'ists' and 'isms' !

My personal recommendation would be to investigate the Thai Theravada Forest Tradition and the lineage of Ajahn Chah.

You can download e-books and listen to audios of Ajahn Chah's teachings at the link (also in our Study Links section at the bottom of the main forums page) and I highly recommend anything from Ajahn Sumedho who was a student of the late Ajahn Chah before becoming an abbot and teacher himself.

You won't find a heavy emphasis on life-to -life rebirth in their talks and writings.

http://forestsanghapublications.org/index.php


Other than that, my suggestion is investigate different traditions and follow whatever appears to be most reasonable to you.

with kind wishes

Aloka

[Acciblyfluila]

Thank you all for the replies.

I would point out that I know of many people who call themselves Buddhist, but engage in many activities that would be antithetical to the traditional Buddhist teachings. Maybe this is what has led to some confusion, on my part.

Since I am utilizing these teachings as a way to be a better human being, rather than find some type of saving or healing, is being a 'Buddhist' that important? What if it really does work out, and I do become a better person... wouldn't it be a great credit to the philosophy to be labeled as such?

Which schools of Buddhism are more open to differing views on this topic? I ask so that I may choose a course of study that is more pertinent to my current philosophy, even though I am open to a natural evolution of many of my beliefs. Also, I am very cognizant of not offending anyone who may hold these beliefs in a more puritanical light than others.

Thanks!

kereD

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Zen is fairly relaxed on the issue preferring to focus on the here and now.

[Peapeuddedbaw]

Which schools of Buddhism are more open to differing views on this topic?

hi Kered

there is the Forest Sangha, as Aloka-D mentioned, and there is also Bhikkhu Buddhadasa

you can try the following books, if interested:

Buddha-Dhamma For Students, including question 47

Two Kinds of Language

Anatta & Rebirth

kind regards



The Buddha refused to have any dealing with those things which don't lead to the extinction of Dukkha [Suffering]. Take the question of whether or not there is rebirth. What is reborn? How is it reborn? What is its kammic inheritance? These questions are not aimed at the extinction of Dukkha. That being so they are not Buddhist teaching and they are not connected with it. They do not lie in the sphere of Buddhism.

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

[moopogyOvenny]

Does not believing in such offend the most devout Buddhist philosophers and teachers?

the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand would not be offended

"The subject of cosmology appeared in Buddhism is clearly can be seen that it is not ‘Buddhist teaching’ at all but an ancient geography. The concept and belief about it was included in Buddhist Canon merely because of strong influence of popular belief of the time.

Later Commentaries further explain about heaven and hell in a greater detail distant itself from the original teaching of the Buddha. If Buddhism teaches such belief on heaven and hell it would not be Buddhism at all but an ancient geography. Buddha wouldn’t be the Buddha who delivered the Noble Truth and ‘timeless’ message for mankind."

http://www.sangharaja.org/en_main.asp in brief, Thai & Zen teachers have generally held a more pragmatic approach to Buddhism (than Sri Lankans, Burmese & Tibetans)

[Ruiceara]

You don't have to limit yourself to one Buddhist tradition/school. I primarily study Zen but I also love hearing almost anyone from the Thai Forest tradition. Dogen Zenji the founder of Soto (Japanese Zen) didn't believe in reincarnation.

[Cgnebksb]

Can you ever call yourself a Buddhist and not believe in reincarnation?

Hi Kered,

Some practitioners do not believe in reincarnation. It is not a requisite to practice the teachings of Buddha. The main issue of those teachings are about being free from mental torment, for this life.

I am not interested in the title of 'Buddhist', and could easily go through life as an agnostic who most aligns himself with the teachings of Buddha. Agree. It is not really needed the title of 'Buddhist'. What is needed is to have confidence in what Buddha taught and the honest intention of quenching mental torment.

[hrotedk]

I would point out that I know of many people who call themselves Buddhist, but engage in many activities that would be antithetical to the traditional Buddhist teachings. Maybe this is what has led to some confusion, on my part.

Yes. That can happen.

Since I am utilizing these teachings as a way to be a better human being, rather than find some type of saving or healing, is being a 'Buddhist' that important? IMO, what is important is to relate with others through a mind free from mental torment. I think that is the best way of being a better person and the best way of doing real good to other and to the world as a whole.

Which schools of Buddhism are more open to differing views on this topic? As far as I have known, some Zen schools and the Thai Forest Tradition support their practice in the here and now giving the utmost importance to the present moment for mental cultivation and the development of wisdom.

Thanks!

kereD

[Cgnebksb]

I am not sure why Dalai Lama made such a comment considering even within the same Buddhist school, there is usually a lot of different views regarding beliefs.

[agracias]

Buddha actually taught (in MN 117) to believe in reincarnation was not Noble Right View and not a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path

[Breilopmil]

Dogen Zenji the founder of Soto (Japanese Zen) didn't believe in reincarnation.

Some sources dispute this and suggest he advocated not knowing....quite a difference!

Some others sources suggest that although he was clearly against reincarnation he was quite pro re-birth.

If we are actually entirely honest we can say he held what appear on the surface to be contradictory views!

[VonErmad4]

Some sources dispute this and suggest he advocated not knowing....quite a difference!
Some others sources suggest that although he was clearly against reincarnation he was quite pro re-birth.
If we are actually entirely honest we can say he held what appear on the surface to be contradictory views!

Brad Warner, who is a Soto Zen priest, mentions Dogen in this video (approx 4 mins) "Life after Death and Reincarnation"





He also said the following on his Hardcore Zen blog towards the end of a page with the title "Literal Rebirth":



Onto question #1, what do we mean by "literal rebirth?"

The late e-sangha said this about me in reference to the above: "Brad Warner is a materialist i.e. he denies rebirth; and therefore, the only conclusion he can assert is that the mind is merely an ephiphenomena (sic) of brain activity. That is principally why knowledgable (sic) Buddhists take issue with him. That being so, he isn’t teaching Buddhism, but instead teaching a Worldly dharma that he and his teacher call 'Zen'.”

As I said before (I think), I do believe that the mind is the product of brain activity. That's what epiphenomena (not ephiphenomena) means. But I also believe that brain is an epiphenomena of mind activity. The mutual inter-relationship causes both to appear.

But that's beside the point. The e-sangha guys believed in literal rebirth. For them it was very important that others also believed that. If they thought someone who claimed to be Buddhist denied literal rebirth, they labeled them non-Buddhist and tried to cast doubt upon them by using phrases like, "That is principally why knowledgable (sic) Buddhists take issue with him." There is no evidence I am aware of that any knowledgeable Buddhists (whoever they might be) take issue with me about my stance on rebirth. It's good to be careful of vague unattributed claims like this in general, by the way.

But what in Heck's name is "literal rebirth?" When you really come right down to it I suppose it means, to most people, that someone is telling them they'll live forever. Literal rebirth means that someday I will actually die as a person in some place and I will get reborn in another place as another person, celestial being or animal.

This is not what Buddhism teaches. Well, it's not what the kind of Buddhism I teach teaches anyway. There is no "literal you" to get "literally reborn." This is the heart of the argument.

And Dogen is pretty clear that there is no "literal you." So the idea that he taught anything like what most people in the Western world mean when they use the phrase "literal rebirth" is absurd.

http://hardcorezen.blogspot.co.uk/20...l-rebirth.html