Expert: Justin Choo - 2/14/2011

Question
QUESTION: I would like to know how Theravadan Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism arrived at such different interpretations regarding the PROCESS of reincarnation/rebirth.  What is the history behind this?  How did this come about?   

The Theravada Tradition interprets the Suttas (teachings) as an immediate Rebirth at the time of death, whereas the Tibetans have it occurring some time after the onset of death (7 days to 7 weeks) and they also believe it takes 3 days for the subtle mind to leave the body.  The Tibetan tradition has the Tibetan book of the dead, the 8 stages of death, and the 3 bardos.  The Theravadan tradition has none of this.

ANSWER: Hi George,

Yours is a very interesting question.  There are many concepts that have similar problems.  The two traditions, as you know, make reference to different texts.  The controversial question is which texts are authentic.  There are numerous Mahayanese sutras that are not found in the Theravada Tipitakka.  

So how did this come about?  You need to trace the sources of the relevant texts.  Of course each tradition will insist that their texts are authentic.  If you trace the historical development of Buddhism after the passing away of the Buddha, you would note that the earliest texts are the Theravada Tipitakka which had been orally transmitted from one generation of monks to the next, until it was written down by the Sri Lankans around 80 BC.  After the passing away of the Buddha, there appeared numerous sects with differing interpretations.  It was because of these that the senior monks conducted what is now regarded as Buddhist councils to confirm the the teachings of the Buddha.  These senior monks are regarded as elders or Thera in Pali.  Subsequently, those texts that were confirmed by the council were called Theravada, or the "way of the Elders".  These texts are the Theravada Tipitakka.  With the passage of time other groups also began to form their various interpretations of the Buddha's teachings and came out with sutras that were never mentioned by the Theravada monks.  These later groups called their tradition as Mahayana, meaning Greater Wheel, and belittled the Theravada tradition by calling them Hinayana, meaning the Lesser Wheel.  That is why the term "Hinayana" is not used now.

Fortunately the fundamental concepts of Buddhism do not differ between the two traditions.  As Buddhism is a very tolerant and peaceful "religion", all Buddhists have no problem existing together albeit with some differing concepts.

Hope this helps.

Take care.

Justin Choo




    

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: If the extra Mahayana sutras where not part of the original Buddhist teachings (texts) how did they come into being?  What was their origin?

I have read that the definition of delusion is not seeing things as they are.  If this is so would it be correct to say that one of these interpretations must be delusion?  

Although the fundamental Buddhist concepts are the same the interpretation on the reincarnation process appears to be quite different.

Answer
Hi George,

<<If the extra Mahayana sutras where not part of the original Buddhist teachings (texts) how did they come into being?  What was their origin?>>

If you read between the lines in my answer, you should be able to derive some conclusions.  If one is a serious follower of the Buddha, it will come a time when all these controversies would be treated as just trivial and irrelevant.  We should spend our valuable time practising the fundamentals of the Buddha's teachings.  

<<I have read that the definition of delusion is not seeing things as they are.  If this is so would it be correct to say that one of these interpretations must be delusion?>>
Again, Buddhist teachings are profound and subject to interpretations.  This is bound to happen over time; the different interpretations. In the final analysis, we have to use our own human intelligence to arrive at some logical conclusions.  If we are to follow blindly the various interpretations of the so-called authorities, then we will have a big problem to reconcile the apparent contradictions.  This is my stand, although I dare not insist that my interpretations are correct.  At least I feel confident with whatever interpretations that I arrive at.  

<<Although the fundamental Buddhist concepts are the same the interpretation on the reincarnation process appears to be quite different.>>
This is the same problem as we have discussed.  To elaborate, Theravada interpretation is that rebirth is a process of a continuation of life consciousness.  There is not an unchanging entity that passes from one life to the other.  Reincarnation is a tibetan concept which is rebirth taking on an unchanging entity.  In simple language, reincarnation means Mr X dies and Mr X being reincarnated in his next life.  Theravada concept of rebirth is the life-stream of Mr X passes from one life to the next, but not exactly Mr X. It is just the persaonailty of Mr X, comprising his store-house of consciousness of his kammic actions.  The Buddha described rebirth as not exactly the same nor completely different.  In Pali, it is called Naca so, Naca anno. (Pronounced: na cha so, na cha anyo)     

Hope this helps.

Take care.

Justin Choo