Thanks. Yes, I do accept rebirth in the Buddhist sense amongst many, perhaps infinite different worlds and levels and dimensions of existence. My Father's house has many mansions.
But I have a problem accepting the idea of repetitive 'reincarnation' back onto the planet Earth, if you think it through?
It seems to be one of the differences between Hindu and Buddhist belief?
Ah, I missed that bit about only human birth. Not sure that's the Hindu view, though? @Aupmanyav
Buddha's position: There is no reincarnation. Once I am gone even Brahma and Indra would not find me. I will be completely and finally gone. There is no soul, so what will reincarnate? Living beings do not have any substance (Anatta). Karma's reincarnate not any non-existent human soul. You cannot put your feet in the same river again.
(This is irrespective of what Theravada or Mahayana Buddhist scholars opined later)
General Hindu/Sikh position: Soul is a part of / emanation of Brahman / this God or that God. It may go through many births and many forms (of which there are 8.4 million, close to what science also maintains) unless by grace of deity, by austerities, by knowledge, by actions, the soul attains nirvana (enlightenment), jnana (knowledge), mukti (release). If that happens then the soul has five kinds of release depending upon the views of the person (from a nice post from another forum):
1. sAlokya = mukta jIva (soul of the living being) being in the same loka (world) as VishNu, Shiva or Devi.
2. sAmIpya = mukta jIva in close proximity (sAnidhya) of Ishwara, IshTa (Chosen deity) - VishNu, Shiva or Devi.
3. sArUpya = mukta jIva is graced with the rUpa (form) like the IshTa - e.g. VishNu's pArshads (courtiers) look like Him.
4. sAyujya = muka jIva merges with the Ishwar, IshTa.
5. kaivalya = There is no trace of the previous individual and this is more about the impersonal, nirguNa Brahman remains, as if the jIva never existed.
Now kaivalya is a loaded word and it stems from keval = ONLY. One only, indivisible.
My views align with Buddha's views or that of Kaivalya (since I believe in non-duality, Advaita).
My difference with Buddha:
Buddha: This contemplation is useless. It does not help in removal of sorrow. I agree that Buddha had a practical position.
My position: This is a valid question - 'what exists'. You cannot sweep it under the rug. What exists is 'physical energy', which constitutes all things in the universe (this is not any 'divine' energy).