Reincarnation and rebirth - The same? Or different?

You will encounter a lot of Buddhists out there who, if one were to say "reincarnation", they would immediately say,

"Yeah? Well, Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation. We believe in rebirth."

This happened recently with me, which prompted me to ask this question. What was it that separated reincarnation and rebirth?

"Well, reincarnation is what Hindus and Sikhs believe." Came the answer from the other Buddhist. We will call him Jacob. "They [Hindus and Sikhs] believe in a personal self that reincarnates. We do not." was his answer when I asked him to clarify what he thinks those who believe in reincarnation believe in.

I've heard the usual 'soul' business - but I am of the opinion that Buddha did not deny the soul's existence (6th March 2011 post), and that did not come up in this discussion.

"What self is this? You will find almost no Hindus or Sikhs out there who regard the skandhas (the base-senses usually mistake for a self by the majority) as the thing that reincarnates; you will find almost no Hindus nor Sikhs who believe that form, or sensation or one's perceptions are the ātman. These are not the ātman. You will find no Hindus nor Sikhs who believe that these are. You will find very very few who even believe that volition--mental formations and mental habits and opinions--are the self." I gave my view regarding this.

The most problematic one here is consciousness. "Hindus and Sikhs believe that consciousness is the self" is a common accusation thrown around by the nihilistic and concept-of-no-soul clinging Buddhists. The main problem is, there is a difference in consciousness concepts; often one will see "Big C" consciousness and "little c consciousness". Allow me to explain a little bit about them.

We all know what little c consciousness is; this can sometimes be called as self-consciousness. Little c consciousness is what we have on a non-supramundane level. One may encounter it by the Sanskrit or Pali terms of vijñāna and viññāṇa respectively; sometimes it can be called as life-force or discernment over consciousness. I think discernment gives the right impression about what is meant, in my opinion, by the Buddha. We can be awake, we can be asleep, we can be unconscious, and we can be in a deep, dreamless sleep--so how can that be the self -- it is argued? Well, that's a good question, but the little c consciousness is not something a large majority of other Dharmic belivers see as reincarnating. A few do, but not all.

Big C consciousness is something else entirely though. There is a concept known as 'turiya' in Hinduism, and in Buddhism its parallel is 'Mind', or 'total consciousness' in the Kunjed Gyalpo, (the Kulayarāja Tantra). It is described in the text as; 'Consciousness' means that self-arising wisdom, the true essence, dominates and clearly perceives all the phenomena of the animate and inanimate universe. This self-arising fundamental substance, not produced by causes and conditions, governs all things and gives life to all things'. This is, ironically, very similar to the Hindu concept of turiya from a Hindu Advaita (non-dual) perspective.

So within Hinduism and Sikhism, who teach 'reincarnation', but like in Buddhism, neither form, sensation, perception, volition or discernment are reincarnated. Buddhism says these are not the ātman; in effect, this is what the Hindus and Sikhs say as well. These are not reincarnated because they are only temporary things. It is something beyond these which is the continuum of our existence.

Buddhism says that the person who we are in the next lifetime is neither the same as, nor different to, who we were in this one. The other Dharmics would agree. So do I.

So, what, then is different between them? In my opinion, nothing. They all teach the same. It should be either a case that Hindus and Sikhs have their beliefs poised as rebirth as well as Buddhism, or Buddhism should accept that it is one of reincarnation.

There are, of course, other forms of reincarnation out there, like the Spiritist forms of reincarnation, and some (even more) fickle forms of New Age philosophy. If these were considered as reincarnation, and the Dharmic ones as rebirth, I would be totally okay with that.

Although, personally I prefer the term reincarnation to rebirth. If we think about it -- rebirth sounds like one is being born again in a very personal way, and reincarnation has a sort of 'taking existence again' sound to it - although that's just semantics.

A musing: greed?

I have been to two funerals this year, both of grandmothers---my own maternal grandmother, and my wife's maternal grandmother. I was surprised to see how quickly the families became so greedy so quickly, and how people began fighting over money.

Even right now, some members of my family are still not speaking with one another because some members of the family asked for more money at the expense of others. A similar thing happened for my wife's family, too - literally less than one hour after her grandmother had transmigrated from this life were some of her children coming around to discuss who takes what according to the will, much to the annoyance of their father, who was sitting in the room at the time, and he had just lost his wife.

Now, by no means do I blame those members of the family who requested more money for I am not certain of their financial situations. Perhaps they required more money and they needed some to survive, or perhaps they were just being greedy and trying to get more money out of family. I can't say for sure, naturally. Either way, I try to be above the "blame game".
 
One thing I can say though, is I think they were all out of order. My own side, for the way they begun to talk negatively about the ones who wanted money. The other side, for requesting an unfair amount of money and becoming irritable when there was no way they would be able to take it.When discussion had finally set in, it was too late: the groups had gone behind one another's back until they could no longer do so. Snide comments were made, found out by others, and arguments ensured.

What is disappointing is how such bitter arguments with family ostracising one another for months, even years, can occur over something so simple and petty which could have been resolved peacefully and amicably if people had sat together and spoken of it calmly and politely and were not clinging to such greed. Money should never split a family, but it often seems to be a main culprit.

Should you be willing to give up some of your own money to someone who wanted more, or would you be willing to allow your father to give more of his own money that he received from his wife's death for peace?

I know that it would be greed for one not to be willing to part with one's money, and it would be charitable to give to those who need to - but how does one know when the one to whom they help are not being greedy, or even worse, as thieves? Should one be willing to art with their money with a smile on their face as they are robbed, or ultimately giving in to a loved one's greed? Or should one, because they are family whom you love, stop them?

What would you guys have done, if money was going to split a family like in the example I have given?