What reincarnates?

[TRobinson465]

According to the texts we have available, it seems to me that the Buddha was contradicting himself.
There's the problem. Anatta says there is nothing to be reborn, and yet there is rebirth.

I think anatta and rebirth (or more accurately, the assumptions behind them) are pulling in completely different directions.

Yes well. There's no sutta that says there's nothing to be reborn. You r simply construing anatta to mean that there is nothing to be reborn. So like I said. It's more likely ur just construing anatta incorrectly than that the anatta teaching actually contradicts rebirth.

Buddhism largely falls apart without rebirth. It does not fall apart without ur specific interpretation of anatta. What makes the Buddha special at all if he wasn't an ordinary being who perfected himself to achieve enlightenment through many lifetimes? Just a random special person with one life who enlightened by pure luck?

[josaphatbarlaam]

According to the texts we have available, it seems to me that the Buddha was contradicting himself.
There's the problem. Anatta says there is nothing to be reborn, and yet there is rebirth.

I think anatta and rebirth (or more accurately, the assumptions behind them) are pulling in completely different directions.

Yes well. There's no sutta that says there's nothing to be reborn. You r simply construing anatta to mean that there is nothing to be reborn. So like I said. It's more likely ur just construing anatta incorrectly than that the anatta teaching actually contradicts rebirth.

So what you're saying is the "anatta doctrine" in modern Buddhist books and how anatta is used in the canon aren't necessarily the same thing.

[TRobinson465]

According to the texts we have available, it seems to me that the Buddha was contradicting himself.
There's the problem. Anatta says there is nothing to be reborn, and yet there is rebirth.

I think anatta and rebirth (or more accurately, the assumptions behind them) are pulling in completely different directions.

Yes well. There's no sutta that says there's nothing to be reborn. You r simply construing anatta to mean that there is nothing to be reborn. So like I said. It's more likely ur just construing anatta incorrectly than that the anatta teaching actually contradicts rebirth.

So what you're saying is the "anatta doctrine" in modern Buddhist books and how anatta is used in the canon aren't necessarily the same thing.

If modern books say there is nothing to be reborn at all. Then yeah.

[Spiny Norman]

According to the texts we have available, it seems to me that the Buddha was contradicting himself.
There's the problem. Anatta says there is nothing to be reborn, and yet there is rebirth.

I think anatta and rebirth (or more accurately, the assumptions behind them) are pulling in completely different directions.

Yes well. There's no sutta that says there's nothing to be reborn. You r simply construing anatta to mean that there is nothing to be reborn. So like I said. It's more likely ur just construing anatta incorrectly than that the anatta teaching actually contradicts rebirth.

Buddhism largely falls apart without rebirth. It does not fall apart without ur specific interpretation of anatta. What makes the Buddha special at all if he wasn't an ordinary being who perfected himself to achieve enlightenment through many lifetimes? Just a random special person with one life who enlightened by pure luck?

So which sutta specifically explains what is reborn?
And which sutta says Buddhism "falls apart" without rebirth?

[Spiny Norman]

Yes well. There's no sutta that says there's nothing to be reborn. You r simply construing anatta to mean that there is nothing to be reborn. So like I said. It's more likely ur just construing anatta incorrectly than that the anatta teaching actually contradicts rebirth.

So what you're saying is the "anatta doctrine" in modern Buddhist books and how anatta is used in the canon aren't necessarily the same thing.

If modern books say there is nothing to be reborn at all. Then yeah.

I'm saying there is nothing to be reborn. So prove me wrong, using the suttas, or the sutras if you prefer. Forget modern books

[TRobinson465]

And which sutta says Buddhism "falls apart" without rebirth?

MN117 implies it pretty strongly.

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

Particularly the last part. Since the Buddha is supposed to be an example of the last part.

[TRobinson465]

I'm saying there is nothing to be reborn. So prove me wrong, using the suttas, or the sutras if you prefer. Forget modern books

Why do I have to prove you wrong? I was simply commenting that I think you r just interpreting anatta wrong if u see it as a contradiction of rebirth.

Why don't u prove yourself right. It's doesn't make for good discussion if ppl can claim anything they want and it's only wrong if someone else can prove it wrong. Kinda similar to some of the guilty until proven innocent arguments I heard when I first joined this forum.

[Spiny Norman]

I'm saying there is nothing to be reborn. So prove me wrong, using the suttas, or the sutras if you prefer. Forget modern books

Why do I have to prove you wrong? I was simply commenting that I think you r just interpreting anatta wrong if u see it as a contradiction of rebirth.

Why don't u prove yourself right. It's doesn't make for good discussion if ppl can claim anything they want and it's only wrong if someone else can prove it wrong. Kinda similar to some of the guilty until proven innocent arguments I heard when I first joined this forum.

Anatta = nothing to be reborn.
Prove me wrong, either with logic or suttas

[mjaviem]

MN117 implies it pretty strongly.

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

Particularly the last part. Since the Buddha is supposed to be an example of the last part.

What does "this world and the 'next'" mean for you? Once answered I am asking you from where do you take such view.

[sphairos]

the five khandhas. It is not an entity, it's a complex psychological/cognitive-emotional process. And it is reborn every fraction of second, not only at the physical birth.

[mjaviem]

The Long Journey

1. “He who is reborn, Nāgasena, is he the same per­son or another?”
“Neither the same nor another.”

“Give me an illustration.”
“In the case of a pot of milk that turns first to curds, then to butter, then to ghee; it would not be right to say that the ghee, butter and curds were the same as the milk, but they have come from that so neither would it be right to say that they are some­thing else.”

2. “Is the man who will not be reborn aware of the fact?”
“Yes, O king.”

“How does he know it?”
“By the cessation of all that is cause or condi­tion of rebirth. As a farmer who does not plough or sow or reap would know that his granary is not gett­ing filled up.”

Hi Bhante, nice to address you here.

I bet "He who is born, Nāgasena, is he the same per­son or another?" would probably be a more fair translation. But it's only my bet.

I like that illustration I think it does a good job: It shows that the continuity is only in our minds, we see something linking all that where in fact there is no such thing, no self connecting all this. We see a cart where there are only assembled parts.

[TRobinson465]

Anatta = nothing to be reborn.
Prove me wrong, either with logic or suttas

This isn't proof. If this is ur proof this is my proof.

Right view = rebirth is real

[Sam Vara]

It seems to me that the anatta doctrine excludes any type of "rebirth". The two teachings are simply incompatible, and seeing them together is incongruous.

Considering the substantial evidence rebirth was taught by the Buddha, it's relative ease in understanding relative to a more advanced concept like anatta, and the fact that it is literally a right view to believe in a hereafter, i would argue that you r simply misunderstanding the concept of anatta rather than the Buddha contradicting himself. Although there are probably plenty of secular Buddhists here that would probably make the exact same argument I just made in reverse.

As if misunderstanding rebirth is somehow easier than misunderstanding anatta.

According to the texts we have available, it seems to me that the Buddha was contradicting himself.
There's the problem. Anatta says there is nothing to be reborn, and yet there is rebirth.

I think anatta and rebirth (or more accurately, the assumptions behind them) are pulling in completely different directions.

Anatta = nothing to be reborn.
Prove me wrong, either with logic or suttas

Where does anattā say there is nothing to be reborn? In SN 22.59, we are told that self is that which is under our control; and also that which is satisfactory and unchangeable. (If the khandhas were self, then they would not be the way they are...)

If anattā is the case, then there is nothing in our experience which is under our control, permanent, and does not lead to pain. But that isn't incompatible with rebirth. Something which is not under our control, impermanent, and leading to pain being reborn involves no self-contradiction.

[TRobinson465]

MN117 implies it pretty strongly.

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

Particularly the last part. Since the Buddha is supposed to be an example of the last part.

What does "this world and the 'next'" mean for you? Once answered I am asking you from where do you take such view.

I interpret next world as next life. I take this from other suttas where this is implied. For instance this sutta here with passages such as this.

With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no next world, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[mjaviem]

Thank you TRobinson, I appreciate it.

...

And I'd like to add that neither supporting the rebirth view nor opposing it leads to dispassion, to cessation and liberation so that is why that's too a good illustration.