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.