Found this to explain rebirth in Buddhism
One way to explain rebirth is to think of all existence as one big ocean. An individual is a phenomenon of existence in the same way a wave is a phenomenon of ocean. A wave begins, moves across the surface of the water, then dissipates. While it exists, a wave is distinct from ocean yet is never separate from ocean. In the same way, that which is reborn is not the same person, yet is not separate from the same person.
Thomas, you raise a valid point on how the Buddhists have nothing to look forward to. One of the most common criticisms of Buddhism, which I have raised here in the past, is that it is nihilistic. It does not believe the self exists, but rather what exists is a momentary self that made up of the 5 skandas(elements, memories, sensations etc) that is extinguished every passing moment because the 5 skandas are in constant change. In fact according to Buddhism change is absolute. Nothing every remains the same. In other words there is no “you” The path of nirvana is for “you” to realise that there is no “you” by attaining complete void/nothingness and thereby the end of suffering.
Now read that carefully and you will find it is completely illogical. There is no you, then who is the “you” that gets nirvana? If the entire goal of the Buddhist is to attain attain absolute void and nothingness is that not the same as absolute death? Is Buddhism a death-religion? Depressing.
There is another problem in Buddhism. If there is no “you” but only a momentary you that ceases the next moment. Then the next “you” is not the old “you” So the old you has nothing to worry about it. It can commit the gravest of sins, and never have to face punishment, because it ceases to exist the next moment.
No Buddhist has ever been able to give me a logical answer to this problem. I once asked a Buddhist who had a husband who had a Masters in Philosophy whether the one who had the Masters in Philosophy was the same person as the one who worked for the degree, and if not, then the doctrine of no-self is wrong. She reacted in outrage that I had insulted her husband who had worked their ass off to get their degree. In other words, indirectly, she believed in the continuity of the one who worked for it and one who got it and therefore did not really believe the no-self doctrine.
No rational person can believe in the no-self doctrine because nobody can deny that they exist. This is the most indubitable fact of reality. It is not open to any doubt. Ones own existence is not a matter of knowledge which we know from something else, or infer, it is something which is self-evident. A “You” is required to know anything, to perceive, to do anything.
But somehow somebody took this completely illogical doctrine of no-self and made a religion out of it. It was not Buddha who taught this doctrine in fact, rather he taught something else, but Buddhists later interpreted it to mean “no self” and the errror has stuck ever since. Later, arose a sect of Buddhism known as Mahayana Buddhism(greater vehicle) that tried to put the error right and claimed to have the original teaching of Buddha where he said “Some fools believe I meant that the self does not exist at all, but what I really was saying was that the apparent self that we know is not the real self, the real self is transcendent and the ultimate state of being”
The Mahayana Buddhists and therefore much more intune with Hinduism and Gnosticism all of which contain the same doctrine that the apparent self is not the real self, the real self is transcendent.
I have looked at the original teachings of Buddha that the Buddhists have taken to mean “no self” and it is very clear to me he did not say that. Instead he said what is repeated in the Hindu scriptures, and that is, “The self is not this, and not that” He never said categorically, “The self does not exist”
Buddhists who believe in the no-self and void doctrine cannot escape the charged of nihilism and Buddhism being a death-religion.
Surya Says
[QUOTE]Thomas, you raise a valid point on how the Buddhists have nothing to look forward to. One of the most common criticisms of Buddhism, which I have raised here in the past, is that it is nihilistic.
[/QUOTE]
I did laugh at this …nothing to look forward to… except enlightenment
CORE…look 2 Box outlines!! but I had to put Surya says …:lol::lol:
[QUOTE=kareng;42309]No Buddhism does not believe in reincarnation, the transmigration of the soul to another body after death. Buddhisms fundamental doctrine is Anatman, no soul or no self .[/QUOTE]
Actually that is debatable depending on the sect…see 14th Dalai Lama.
[QUOTE=kareng;42350]Surya Says
I did laugh at this …nothing to look forward to… except enlightenment
[/QUOTE]
Me too.
Viewing Buddhism as nihilistic is a common mistake made by those that do not really understand what it is
In Buddhism is there hope of eternal happiness?
That something of the person lives on continuously and consciously from this earthly life to whatever state comes next. That there would be some for of communion with others who have done likewise.
[QUOTE=Yulaw;42351]Actually that is debatable depending on the sect…see 14th Dalai Lama.[/QUOTE]
yes I did have real trouble with this…in trying to explain it and gave up
can you direct me to the site at all? Please Yulaw xx
A good link that may help explain nihilism and why Buddhism is not nihilistic.
Thanks lotusgirl wil check it out
[QUOTE=kareng;42363]yes I did have real trouble with this…in trying to explain it and gave up
can you direct me to the site at all? Please Yulaw xx[/QUOTE]
Buddhism is not so much not believing in Reincarnation or Rebirth as it is in not believing in an eternal self (Eternal unchanging soul). There is no self that is separate form everything else (EEEK - scary similarity to quantum physics)
In the case of the Dali Lama it is a bit different however, he is a spiritual leader
Thanks Yulaw I will check them out x
Can someone who is a Buddhist say in their own words what they believe about life after death (of the body)?
I will get back to you on this…got to see to dogs xx
Are you referring to what happens to the physical body? Or when nirvana is reached?
I’m going to have to leave, so I’ll go ahead and assume you mean both.
Nirvana can be attained during a lifetime, in a physical body or at the time of death. It is pure bliss, peace. No more sorrow/the end of suffering. But the Buddha has cautioned us that Nirvana is “beyond our imagination” and one would be foolish to speculate. So who knows?
[QUOTE=lotusgirl;42384]Are you referring to what happens to the physical body? Or when nirvana is reached?
I’m going to have to leave, so I’ll go ahead and assume you mean both.
Nirvana can be attained during a lifetime, in a physical body or at the time of death. It is pure bliss, peace. No more sorrow/the end of suffering. But the Buddha has cautioned us that Nirvana is “beyond our imagination” and one would be foolish to speculate. So who knows?[/QUOTE]
But after death, you will still be you, correct? There will be some kind of continuity. You will remember your earthy existence. Right?
Buddhism does at times come across as depressing & nihilistic.the concept of nothingness/emptiness is the state the meditators talk about. whhaaat? And Christianity is full of folk feeling guilty about everything.And if you look at many of it’s exponents those that attend churches i’ve been to few of them seem to really practice what they preach.There is little to no actuall science involved . It is bhakti yoga but it had it’s limitations, I’m sure Jesus was a nice guy but As Surya says he is a dime a dozen. We can all be Jesuses if we put in the effort.
Now Hinduism, there’s a religion to talk about. :lol: :lol:
Seeing God in the One & the Many.Now that actually makes sense.It [I]is[/I] inclusive and says you can pick any avatar you like. Any coulur you like. If you are religious period, it is cool in their eyes.Anything goes.
Hinduism Needs You.
Those who have a distorted view of Jesus can be just like him and call him a “dime a dozen.”
But those of us who understand and believe in Jesus realize He is God in the flesh, our Lord and Savior, and through Him all things were created.
We are to be “Christ-like” but nobody could come close to being what he is, which is God.
Who else do you know of who cured lepers, caused the blind to see, the lame to walk, raised people from the dead, etc.?
Of course you might think that is all hooey, and that’s your right, but when you tell a Christian that people like Jesus are a dime a dozen, or that he was just a “nice guy,” you are telling the Chrisitian that his religion is false, and are supremely insulting the Christian faith, though I suspect you do so in ignorace and not by intent. But please understand, to a Christian, Jesus is God Incarnate, and to Him the Christian owes his life and his gratitude for making the ultimate sacrifice on his behalf, and only through Him can sins be forgiven and Heaven be attained.
The explanation given by the Buddhist religious web site to defend its religious doctrine can only convince the converted religious members of Buddhism, not the critical thinker and members outside of the religion.
Let us examine it:
The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality. To subscribe to a philosophy of materialism is to understand life only partially. Nihilism ignores the side of life which is concerned with mental conditionality. If one claims that after the passing away or ceasing of a life, it does not come to be again, the continuity of mental conditions is denied. To understand life, we must consider all conditions, both mental and material. When we understand mental and material conditions, we cannot say that there is no life after death and that there is no further becoming after passing away.
So Buddhism says there is a continuation after death, but the critical thinker asks “What continues?” Buddhism says that the skandas(elements, memories, sensations) continue, but categorically says no self continues. This is no different to the materialist view which says that after death what continues is the elements that constitute our body, the memories as stored in the brain and in other parts of the body(it is now believed memories can be stored in other parts of the body other than the brain) which are then recycled and other things created from it, but no self continues.
Both insist that the parts that constitute a self continue, but the self itself does not continue. So the answer to Thomas’s question which the Buddhists on this thread have evaded, no self continues. You are dead not only at the time of the death of the body, but you died innumerable times every moment of life. There is no you.
Now to anybody who is not a Buddhist this clearly sounds like nihilism, depressing and a death-religion. It is very easy to use this no-self doctrine to justify the gravest of acts. If I cease to exist the next moment, then I can commit murder and rape this moment, and the one who is going to face the punishment for what I did is not me, but the other momentary self that comes next. In fact, I can simply sit and do nothing, but after all I don’t exist.
Sure enough Buddhism has been used to justify things like murder, genocides and inaction and this is why Buddhist countries did not progress. Very famously Dr Suzuki, a major authority on Buddhism and Japan, famously said and we studied this in our class when discussing Buddhist philosophy.
Events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing of importance to the Japanese people, they were but just like the blowing wind of dust particles(something to that effect)
Many critical thinkers have found this attitude depressing and nihilistic. How can it not be important to the Japaense people that tens of millions of their people were annihilated? What kind of religion teaches you that you should treat such serious problems as genocide, annhilation and war lightly? Buddhism.
Regarding Jesus being a dime a dozen. This is not said in a disrespectful way. In fact Hindus respect masters and saints. It should be said Hinduism is the religion of masters and saints. What we really mean by saying that Jesus is a dime a dozen, is that he is not special and an exception, he one amongst countless masters and saints.
India has had so many that I can fill pages of all the masters and saints that India has had. Many of which have performed similar miracles to Jesus, and some even greater miracles.
Hindu people are not impressed by Jesus, because for us Jesus is a dime a dozen. We had many such masters in our religion, that we’ve lost count. There is a school of thought, but I reserve judgement on that at the moment, that Jesus travelled to India and was under the tutelage of our masters.
India has been the breeding ground for producing masters historically. We can mass-produce them 
But it has also been defined as a religious teaching and it is possible to follow Buddhist concepts and not be a religious Buddhist.