I already stated that I'm not a Buddhist and I don't believe in the Buddhist teaching of rebirth. I am very interested in Buddhism, however.

it doesn't follow that you have practised since beginningless times and you have already practised with diligence infinite times and you somehow always failed. — boundless

If a cycle of rebirth and death is beginingless then there will always be a previous cause or rebirth and this would go back infinitely. If there’s no beginning then there’s no end.

This isn't necessarily the case. Traditional buddhists would reply that the ultimate cause of the cycle is ignorance. If ignorance is removed, samsara stops. If ignorance is never removed, the cycle will go on forever.

BTW, this problem was one of the reason why I ultimately ceased to try to become a Buddhist. If the cycle is beginningless, then the very existence of the 'cycle' is unintelligible. As youb remarked, each instance of rebirth is intelligible in principle, it is a regulate phenomenon. It would be weird if the very existence of the cycle is an unintelligible 'brute fact'.

If, however, the cycle began, this means that if other traditional Buddhist claims are true it must end:

“Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.” — SN 56.11, bhikkhu Bodhi translation

However the traditional Buddhist view is that it doesn't necessarily end. Rather it ends if ignorance is removed.

If the cycle is beginningless, then the very existence of the 'cycle' is unintelligible. — boundless

'Saṃsāra has no beginning, but it has an end. Nirvāṇa has a beginning, but it has no end' ~ Buddhist Aphorism (quoted on Dharmawheel.)

This isn't necessarily the case. Traditional buddhists would reply that the ultimate cause of the cycle is ignorance. If ignorance is removed, samsara stops. If ignorance is never removed, the cycle will go on forever. — boundless

But we’re not looking forward, we’re looking infinitely backwards, and in the past ignorance has necessarily never been removed because we are here in ignorance.

This ventures into some concepts more native to some schools of Hinduism, with the veil being the "veil of Maya".

Yes, my position is more on the Hinduism side of the issue (via Theosophy)

The problem with assuming defaults, innate essences (such as "all beings have Buddha nature") is that they bog one down.

Assumed for the purpose of discursive discussion.

If you have Buddha nature, then why are you here, suffering, instead of being happy and enlightened?

One is going through a process, there may be many other things going on (behind the veil), or of which we are a small part. Which entail what is going on here. One of the first things that occur to us as individuals as a young child is the realisation of our individuality and therefore questions arise about our circumstances, what is going on here, where is this, why am I here? I remember this realisation in my life, I must have been about 3yrs old. These questions have not been answered, even though I have searched long and hard for an answer. As such there cannot be an answer for your question, because the circumstances relating to it have not been established.

If you suffer now, despite having/being Buddha nature, and later become enlightened, then where's the guarantee that you won't lose your enligtenment and suffer again?

Again this can’t be answered, as above. However, presumably, one would have sufficient agency to prevent the onset of suffering. Although I would suggest that there is likely an exalted state equivalent to suffering within that exalted realm. On the cosmic scale, there may be imperfect gods, or greater processes beyond our understanding going on.

If you are now covered by the veil of Maya, how can you possibly trust your choice of spiritual guidance?

Through humility and faith. This would necessarily require living a relatively simple and stress free life.

Thus assuming some kind of innate natrure, an essence, implies, among other things, that you are ultimately helpless against that veil of Maya, helpless against suffering.

I’m not quite sure where the implication lies here. But never the less, when one thinks about our circumstances, we are as individuals helpless. We rely entirely on our community for almost everything. When it comes to salvation, we might think that we personally somehow achieve something, but what is more likely is that circumstances bestow it upon us. As we are playing a small part in a greater process. A process which given we are talking about “supernatural” states like nirvana, will likely entail transcendent realities beyond our comprehension.

It's how the outlook of innate nature is demoralizing, unless, of course, one has a grand enough ego to compensate for it.

Or perhaps it is an acceptance in humility of a reality. Presumably, by this point one would have deflated and reconciled one’s ego.

I actually find both rebirth and reincarnation entirely plausible.

I also find the Hindu explanation plausible according to which Vishnu/Krishna incarnates himself as a buddha/the Buddha.
Having studied a bit of both Buddhism and Hindusim, I find there is a peculiar fit between the two.

Likewise.

As @baker remarked, the idea is quite explicit in some strands of Mahayana with the concept of 'Buddha nature'. However, it can be said that it is implied by the fact that the Buddhist practice is seen as a way to purify the mind, i.e. removing all the 'impurities'. So, rather than a transformation into something 'alien', the Buddhist path actually seems to have been presented as a way to bring the mind-stream to its 'purity'.
This idea is IMO recurrent in ancient religious and philosophical traditions. You can find analogous idea in Christianity, for instance, when sins are depicted as an impurity or an illness that 'stain' the purity (yes, there is original sin but as you probably know the interpretation of that concept wasn't the same among all Christian traditions... and, anyway, there is the idea that all God's creations are originally good and, therefore, evil is a corruption that came about later).

Yes, so my intuition is actually an acceptance (or realisation) of a deeper understanding underlying these religions. That they are playing a role in a process of purification of the self. That the self is not required, to go anywhere, to do anything, achieve anything in reconciling (becoming liberated from) their incarnation. But rather to relinquish, to lay down the trappings of our incarnate selves.

'Saṃsāra has no beginning, but it has an end. Nirvāṇa has a beginning, but it has no end' ~ Buddhist Aphorism (quoted on Dharmawheel.) — Wayfarer

That's a good way to summarize things, altough I believe that if one really wants to be 'pedantic', one would say: "Samsara has no beginning but it can end. Nirvana is unconditioned, but conventionally has a beginning" or something like that.

But we’re not looking forward, we’re looking infinitely backwards, and in the past ignorance has necessarily never been removed because we are here in ignorance. — praxis

I understood that. But, again, my point is that the mere infinite succession of lifetimes doesn't guarantee that either of us has already practise seriously the Dharma. Indeed, as I said, it is generally emphasized that being born as a human is a rare event and being born a human and live in a time when it is possible to practise the Dharma is even rarer. But even in the best conditions, at the end of the day one has still to choose to practice.
So even if samsara is beginningless, it doesn't follow that you have already practised the Dhamma in a serious way.

Yes, so my intuition is actually an acceptance (or realisation) of a deeper understanding underlying these religions. That they are playing a role in a process of purification of the self. That the self is not required, to go anywhere, to do anything, achieve anything in reconciling (becoming liberated from) their incarnation. But rather to relinquish, to lay down the trappings of our incarnate selves. — Punshhh

Yes, I think I can more or less agree.

If 'evil' is a corruption of the good, we are at the deepest level good. Hence, the 'spiritual life' doesn't 'transform' us in something that is 'alien to us' but, rather, it aims at the ultimate fulfillment of our nature.

I understood that. But, again, my point is that the mere infinite succession of lifetimes doesn't guarantee that either of us has already practise seriously the Dharma. Indeed, as I said, it is generally emphasized that being born as a human is a rare event and being born a human and live in a time when it is possible to practise the Dharma is even rarer. But even in the best conditions, at the end of the day one has still to choose to practice.
So even if samsara is beginningless, it doesn't follow that you have already practised the Dhamma in a serious way. — boundless

You’re saying that in an eternity, and across all space and time, innumerable sentient beings never had the insight that one dude on earth—the Buddha—had?

That is laughable, isn’t it? I would say the basic insight is profound, sure, but really. And the religion is fundamentally the same as any other.

Not sure why you did raise this objection. Let's say that, as you say, 'enlightenment' can be reached outside the dispensation of Buddhist traditions. Even if it is true, in order to get 'enlightened', you need to live in a time and place that allows the possibility of you becoming aware of these 'paths' and practise them. Even then, in order to become 'enlightened', you'd need to practice personally 'well enough' the teachings of one of these 'paths'.

So, merely saying that the cycle of rebirth is beginningless gives us no guarantee that one has already practised 'well enough'.

Personally, one of the reasons I'm not convinced by the traditonalist Buddhist account of a beginningless cycle of samsara is because Buddhist doctrine says that ignorance, the root cause of rebirth, isn't an essential property of the mind. At the same time, however, we are told that, despite this, our minds (or 'mind-streams') have always be tainted by 'ignorance' and other 'defilements'.
However, no explanation is given on why the mind-streams of sentient beings have been always 'defiled' when, in fact, according to the same Buddhist traditions, the mind can be freed from one's defilments shows that they aren't an essential feature of the mind (i.e. minds can exist without defilments).

I've been thinking along the same lines. In fact yesterday I was recalling a time when I was part of a Zen temple in LA. The temple was founded by Maezumi Roshi, who incidentally was an infamous alcoholic and womanizer. The Roshi I practiced with occasionally gave 'the big talk' to the sangha where he sort of laid out a condense version of Buddhism. Zen folks usually just do a lot of sitting. I couldn't for the life of me remember any of what he said except for the beginning where he started with, "through no fault of our own..." and something to the effect 'we are ignorant'.

He's right of course, if we've always—literally alway and for all time—been ignorant then it can't be our fault that we're ignorant. Original sin? That similarity is the sort of thing I mean when I say Buddhism is fundamentally the same as other religions.

He's right of course, if we've always—literally alway and for all time—been ignorant then it can't be our fault that we're ignorant. Original sin? That similarity is the sort of thing I mean when I say Buddhism is fundamentally the same as other religions. — praxis

Yeah, I agree. Despite their vast doctrinal differences, most forms of Christianity and most forms of Buddhism agree on two points:

(1) The 'ordinary' state of human beings* is a state in which our nature is, in some sense, 'wounded', we are born in a condition of weakness, tendency to do what is actually harmful to us and so on (we might use the expression 'original sin' for this feature).
(2) This 'wounded state', however, isn't an essential state for human beings. Both religions, indeed, proclaim the possibility that we can reach a state of 'being healed' by these wounds (we might call this feature 'essential goodness').

Note that, in both cases, ontologically the 'essential goodness' is more fundamental than the 'original sin'. If it wasn't, liberation would be impossible for both religions.


*after the 'original fall' in Christianity.

Having studied a bit of both Buddhism and Hindusim, I find there is a peculiar fit between the two.
— baker
Why would it be peculiar when they both were born in the same place and the Buddha grew up in the Hindu tradition? — unimportant

I man that they "fit" in the sense that Buddhism is similar to a kind of Hindu monotheism but without the theistic references (and all concepts adjusted accordingly). It very much fits the idea that God incarnated himself as the Buddha. Where Hindu theism is explicitly theistic, Buddhism is silent. It seems the two don't contradict eachother. (Practitioners of both like to claim otherwise, of course. But if you look at just the Pali Canon, there doesn't seem to be anything that contradicts Hindu ideas.)

'Saṃsāra has no beginning, but it has an end. Nirvāṇa has a beginning, but it has no end' ~ Buddhist Aphorism (quoted on Dharmawheel.) — Wayfarer

Which is why laundry and dishes are excellent candidates for being Nirvana. They, too, have no end.

:lol: ‘After the Ecstacy, the Laundry’ ~ well-known book on the spiritual path by Jack Kornfield.

But we’re not looking forward, we’re looking infinitely backwards, and in the past ignorance has necessarily never been removed because we are here in ignorance. — praxis

That's still thinking in terms of reincarnation, not rebirth.
Or perhaps you're referring to humanity as a whole??

If a cycle of rebirth and death is beginingless then there will always be a previous cause or rebirth and this would go back infinitely. If there’s no beginning then there’s no end. — praxis

In the grand scheme of things, roughly, yes. In Buddhist cosmology, universes keep coming in and out of existence (in contrast to Christianity, where it's a one-off deal).

And as universes keep coming into existence, so do living beings. And the way for them to exit existence is to follow the path of a buddha, who also appears each time around.

You’re saying that in an eternity, and across all space and time, innumerable sentient beings never had the insight that one dude on earth—the Buddha—had? — praxis

See above.

"Buddha" is actually a title, a function, not the identity of a person. Brahma, Shiva, Buddha -- these are all functions, roles; we can actually write them in lower case.

Even if samsara is beginningless…
— boundless

You’re claiming that teaching may be false? — praxis

I'm thinking of it in terms of "the same kinds of things are happening over and over again".
Not the identic, same thing.

It's like in a theatre play where in different performances of the play different actors can play the same role. The role is the same, the words are the same, the actions are the same, but the actors differ.
Nibbana is like when an actor decides not to play the role anymore.

As baker remarked, the idea is quite explicit in some strands of Mahayana with the concept of 'Buddha nature'. However, it can be said that it is implied by the fact that the Buddhist practice is seen as a way to purify the mind, i.e. removing all the 'impurities'. So, rather than a transformation into something 'alien', the Buddhist path actually seems to have been presented as a way to bring the mind-stream to its 'purity'. — boundless

But with a caveat. The concept of Buddha nature can be taken to mean that all one needs to do is get to some primeval, pure state, and that's that. But we have this:

/.../
Then Pañcakanga went to Uggahamana and, on arrival, greeted him courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was sitting there, Uggahamana said to him, "I describe an individual endowed with four qualities as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. An individual endowed with these four qualities I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments."

Then Pañcakanga neither delighted in Uggahamana's words nor did he scorn them. Expressing neither delight nor scorn, he got up from his seat & left, thinking, "I will learn the meaning of this statement in the Blessed One's presence."

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, after bowing down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he told the Blessed One the entire conversation he had had with Uggahamana.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to Pañcakanga: "In that case, carpenter, then according to Uggahamana's words a stupid baby boy, lying on its back, is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. For even the thought 'body' does not occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would it do any evil action with its body, aside from a little kicking? Even the thought 'speech' does not occur to it, so from where would it speak any evil speech, aside from a little crying? Even the thought 'resolve' does not occur to it, so from where would it resolve on any evil resolve, aside from a little bad temper? Even the thought 'livelihood' does not occur to it, so from where would it maintain itself with any evil means of livelihood, aside from its mother's milk? So, according to Uggahamana's words, a stupid baby boy, lying on its back is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.

"If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back.

"An individual endowed with ten qualities is one whom I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.
/.../
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.078.than.html

In other words, cultivation is required, not just some regression to a primal, "innocent" state. In Buddhist cosmology, there is no such thing as a primal, "innocent" state the way there is in Christianity.

If there is no continuity of memory, then there is no continuity of "interesting threads". On the other hand what if, as Kastrup believes, nothing is lost but all experience is taken up by the universal mind or God, contributing to its evolution? I'm not saying I believe that, but it dispenses with the need for individual rebirth.

Not "forever", but cyclically. In Buddhist cosmology, a universe comes into existence, exists, and then disappears. And then another one appears, exists, disappears, and so on. — baker

I don't see how that helps the case unless universal liberation were achieved at the end of the life of each universe. By the way, do you have a citation from the scriptures to support that cosmological view?

By understanding paticcasamuppada, dependent co-arising. — baker

That might be the theory, but where is the practice?

I don't think so.
Enlightenment the Buddhist way is not something many people would or even could want. I find it odd that the idea has such prominence in culture at large, when it's such a highly specific niche interest.

In any case no one but the actual enlightened would know,

Indeed, the phrase colloquially used is "It takes an arahant to know an arahant". Other than that, there are in traditional teachings some pointers as to how even non-arahants might recognize one.

and is it even credible that any human being could not be mistaken in thinking they were enlightened?

It happens all the time in Buddhist venues. It's actually not a problem there. — baker

But how do you, presumably a self-acknowledged unenlightened one, know all this? Or, on the basis of what do you believe it?

Also, rebirth is quite consistent with anatman. If the male human John Smith can become in the future a female ant, then there is little in John Smith that can be considered an underlying essence. — boundless

If there is little (nothing?) in John Smith that can be considered to be an underlying essence, then the idea of him becoming a future female ant seems unintelligible. I've heard the "candle flame" analogy, but it seems simplistically linear and naive in the context of a vastly interconnected world.

Marvellous verse, I had not encountered that one before. It is almost identical to what integral theorist Ken Wilbur described as the ‘pre-trans fallacy’. It describes a fundamental confusion between different levels of human consciousness. In his view, human development follows a path from the pre-rational stage of early childhood to the rational stage of adulthood and finally to the trans-rational stage of spiritual maturity. The fallacy occurs because both the pre-rational and the trans-rational stages are non-rational, which leads people to mistake one for the other.

———

The Buddhist teaching on rebirth does not say that you — understood as a persisting personal subject, ego, or bearer of identity — will be reborn. That is precisely what the doctrine of non-self (anattā) rules out from the start. If there were a “you” in that sense, rebirth would amount to reincarnation - a single self which is born again and again, and which Buddhism explicitly rejects. That is the ‘eternalist’ view. But the idea that actions in this life have no consequence beyond physical death is the opposite mistake, the ‘nihilist’ view. (An implication being that modern thought is basically nihilist in orientation.)

What continues is the causal process that underlies and gives rise to living beings. There is continuity without strict identity. And that stands to reason, because all of us are both the same as, and different to, the person we were in the past. Self is a dynamic stream of consciousness, called in Sanskrit ‘cittasantana’ — but without an unchanging kernel or eternally existent core.

The aggregates arise, function, and cease. If ignorance and craving persist, the causal conditions for further arising persist. This is why the Buddha avoids answering questions like “Is it the same person who is reborn?” or “Is it a different one?” Or for that matter “who experiences Nirvāṇa?” Such questions are posed on the basis of a false conception of the nature of self, which is why they are left unanswered.

How do I ‘know this is true’? I don’t ’know that it’s true.’ But to me, it makes considerably more sense than the idea that all the righteous dead will be resurrected at the End Times and bodily ascend in the Rapture.

If there is no continuity of memory, then there is no continuity of "interesting threads". On the other hand what if, as Kastrup believes, nothing is lost but all experience is taken up by the universal mind or God, contributing to its evolution? I'm not saying I believe that, but it dispenses with the need for individual rebirth.

Well the idea as I understand it is that it is a process of the development and refinement of beings. Such that a refined being is taken up into the presence of God (I don’t hold to the idea of one universal God as such) and continues again to develop into a God. A being as a God, a God who is/was a being.

Regarding the continuity of the threads, there is a memory in the being, not the mind. Perhaps in a similar way that karma would be remembered.

BTW, this problem was one of the reason why I ultimately ceased to try to become a Buddhist. — boundless

Fwiw to the thread, the reason I stopped is because asking simple questions of Buddhists generally results in incoherent platitudes, despite Buddhists being some of the sweetest, lightest people I have ever met (besides generally well-adjusted children). It was extremely unattractive in practice.

But we’re not looking forward, we’re looking infinitely backwards, and in the past ignorance has necessarily never been removed because we are here in ignorance.
— praxis
That's still thinking in terms of reincarnation, not rebirth. — baker

I can't fathom how you arrive at that conclusion from the one sentence I wrote.

It's like in a theatre play where in different performances of the play different actors can play the same role. The role is the same, the words are the same, the actions are the same, but the actors differ.
Nibbana is like when an actor decides not to play the role anymore. — baker

Are you saying that you don't believe sentient beings are reborn and there's just reoccurring archetypes? Sort of a Joseph Campbell/Buddha fusion thang.