While the author's idea that his Buddhist beliefs help people to be less afraid of dying through the act of reincarnation, I agree with other posts that say there is no proof for this.

It does remind me of the Christian belief that Jesus 'rose again' during his supposed resurection, so I guess they can hardly say anything against reincarnation!

There are some nice ideas in Bhuddism such as the interconnectedness of all living things but there are also nice ideas in Christianity such as do unto others. This does not mean the religion or way of life has any basis in truth or fact as the author implies.

Ultimately it comes down to a personal choice. Humans are both social beings, needing the companionship of others, and also highly individualistic which explains the vast numbers of religions and philosophies to which people subscribe.

Concepts such as reincarnation, karma and heaven are all ways of coping with the idea of death and dying.

Ian, this is something I've ruminated on and come to the conclusion that Buddhism's closer to the general ball-park of a faithless, agnostic spirituality than any of the other major world religions, but it still has its faith hangups which run contrary to the available evidence.

Consider this. You spoke of the interconnectedness of all things. How nothing was whole, but it was connected and they were all seemingly disparate but forming a lattice.

The concept of reincarnation contradicts this.
You state that my singular consciousness, connected albeit with my thoughts being mine alone, would be reincarnated in another singular whole form, despite the physical self being broken down and reformed?

And there's some kind of pecking order based on the acquisition of wisdom?

A bridge too far.

That's no reason to discard this whole idea entirely however.

The fact is, we each do possess a singular consciousness. My thoughts are mine.
But we can't rule out that any given 'consciousness' was formed by some kind of energy that forms in masses, coalescing in brains, leading to different concentrations and intelligences.
That kind of arrangement applies to everything. Recycled and re-used. This energy strikes me as a much more mature concept of god, having been separated from the simplistic imposition of omniscient intelligence (a contradiction in terms in my book).

So, I take solace in the idea that whilst when I die, I'll not come back as anything so singularly prosaic as a rabbit or an encyclopaedia salesman. Portions might, some energy might be in electrical wires or a bushfire and my physical self will be strewn across innumerable objects and substances.

There's the next step for you, Ian.
Ditch the morality tale, it's not needed when you realise decency is a path to fulfilment without the faith-based reincarnation fable. Ditch the need to even exist as a singular consciousness or object, which is the stumbling block for most, who haven't embraced the real idea of an intertwined existence, but dress up their faith as a concept which has.

Well said TRTL.

I agree with your thoughts on both Buddhism and the fact that everything in the universe is recycled. Buddhism is the one religion that does not have difficulties with science, particularly evolution. Also Buddhists are working with scientists on understanding brain function:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/s943369.htm

<< Ditch the need to even exist as a singular consciousness or object >>

Absolutely.

This article confirmed some parts of my understandings of Buddhism.

Being a Christian I beg to differ on the author's claim that Buddhism is "based on facts, not faith" unlike religions. Contra this claim- the opposite is true- Christianity is based on the fact of Jesus Resurrection. Personally I'm very much persuaded by the arguments for Jesus Resurrection put forward by some of the most brilliant modern day scholars such as N T Wright and William Lane Craig. And upon putting forward claims for the resurrection in the past on discussion boards such as this, I've never read anything by anyone which has seriously even come close to defeating the evidences.

However, I'll digress from that because it isn't my main point. My main point is that the "fact not faith" was a misleading comment, because of the implication that facts and faith are somehow opposed. Facts and reason can only get one so far- hence, faith is required. Not only that, but every worldview and every system of acquiring knowledge is ultimately based on faith anyway.

Even science. Any honest scientist would admit as much, but if you beg to differ, check out Paul Davies article "Taking Science on Faith" which appeared in the New York Times in 2007.

Nice try at an explanation, but you went over the heads of the Christians I'm afraid. Having a Faith, all they see is other Faiths. They simply don't get Philosophy; Thinking was trained out of them in school. Dogma and thinking don't work together so it is not surprising that Christians see Science and Philosophy as "competing" faiths. ("If all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails")
The impermanence start was good but this wasn't really used to link to Karma ('cause and effect') and what reincarnation *really* means (Once impermanence is internalised and "being" understood then it sort of flows naturally.) Modern multi verse physics is also completely compatible.
Like all pseudo/neo-Buddhists who came to it via my own path, I can see exactly what the author was trying to say, but would disagree with some of the language used. Please keep trying! the Theists and Deists continually try to mis-represent the Buddhist Tao, so it is great to see someone try and help the seekers. (There is no help for the brainless.)