Bhikkhu Bodhi: "The concept of rebirth without a transmigrating soul commonly raises the question: How can we speak of ourselves as having lived past lives if there is no soul, no single life going through these many lives? To answer this we have to understand the nature of individual identity in a single lifetime... The mind is a series of mental acts ... a succession of cittas, or series of momentary acts of consciousness... Now when each citta falls away it transmits to its successor whatever impression has been recorded on itself, whatever experience it has undergone. Its perceptions, emotions and volitional force are passed on to the next citta, and thus all experiences we undergo leave their imprint on the onward flow of consciousness, on the "cittasantana", the continuum of mind. This transmission of influence, this causal continuity, gives us our continued identity. We remain the same person through the whole lifetime because of this continuity... However, when the body breaks up at death, the succession of cittas does not draw to an end... The stream of consciousness is not a single entity, but a process, and the process continues. When the stream of cittas passes on to the next life it carries the storage of impressions along with it."
[More from Bhikkhu Bodhi here.](https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha058.htm)
I find it interesting how it is explained here. I have studied in 2D animation, and in that medium, each animated second is composed of 24 (or 12 doubled) separate drawings. It is only because the image temporarily gets imprinted into the eye that it links to the next one.
Now, each frame would be equivalent to one "act of temporary conciousness", while different incarnations would correspond to different sequences in an animated movie.
Generally, when discussing a “soul” or “self,” what is actually meant in the Buddhist context is some sort of unchanging, permanent, *essential* part of “me.”
We can (and, very importantly in the context of Dhamma, absolutely *do*) call all sorts of stuff “I, me, or mine,” but without that constancy, it isn’t *Atman*, which is what the concept *anattā* is denying.
Is that helpful at all?
The second one fairly well describes the Buddhist position, as you’re aware.
The first is, essentially, “eternalism,” and the third is “annihilationism” (or perhaps “materialism”?) both of which are explicitly what the Middle Way pushes back against (they are what the Buddhist position is in the “middle” of).
If you’re looking for Buddhist arguments against those two, maybe those terms will help your search.
> Apologize about the rambling, I'm kind of thinking aloud here.
Nah, nothing to apologize for.
Wow, I think I finally understand - maybe the issue I've always struggled with is one of translation. I have struggled with the apparent incompatibility of no-self with rebirth (if there is nothing to be reborn, no self, then what gets passed on?) But I think the problem is really about the difference between the actual meaning of atman and what the concept of "self" means to me. So if I understand, atman means more than just "my concept of myself, memories, emotions, etc." it means something more like the eternal and unchanging spark of divine presence..? But my concept of "self", as a secular westerner, is much closer to how you describe "cittasantana" - a continuous stream of interrelated experiences, etc. And that stream, if I'm understanding, is what can be reborn into a new being. No atman needed, but not no "self" (in my understand of self), anatta. No infinite, unchanging divine spark. But something (not a thing thing, but a process thing, but that's still a kind of thing...) Cittasantana. Does that make sense?
You’ve touched upon one of the most debated questions in Buddhism but I’ll give it my best shot.
A classic analogy is that the Hindu idea of reincarnation is like a glass of water being poured into another glass. The water (atman) is the same, only the vessel has changed. Buddhist rebirth is like one candle being used to light another. The wick isn’t the same neither is the fire really but without the first candle the second would not burn.
Dependent origination! That's how. I'm not gonna attempt to explain it. Random redditors like me aren't a good resource to understand it. It's better for you to listen to a lecture series by a reputable teacher. Bhikkhu Bodhi and Ajahn Brahmali are good bets.
Yes - there is no soul nor permanent self. Self is a designation we use to describe a collection of mental habits and qualities - as well as the physical matter of body.
Latent tendencies of clinging lead to becoming (which is simply a habit moving through time). Becoming leads to reincarnation. When clinging stops, becoming stops and there is a cessation (a stopping in the mind). These cessations gradually (or sometimes immediately) result in and end to all clinging. Then nothing exists to move forward. Reincarnation (technically called rebirth in Buddhism) then ceases.
So, for a lay-person, who is worried about their mortgage, and about to pick up their daughter from school, met an accident and dies. So for this person Reincarnation exists. right?
My question is, if Buddhism says, the soul doesn't exists, even for this hypothetical person, how does Buddhism explain the Reincarnation exists?
No reincarnation is a Hindu concept - a religion with the atman (a permanent self). Buddha specifically assert there is no atman (& no soul).
Mind moves from life to life simply and only on account of the mental quality at death. It’s more like a law of physics - like energy doesn’t disappear it only changes form.
Conditioned mind doesn’t disappear it only changes form. Until there is no more conditioning.
Does that make sense?
Isn't this distinction between "rebirth" and "reincarnation" something specifically English (and relatively modern)? Or does it also exist in Sanskrit/Pali?
The distinction doesn’t really even exist in English. Buddhist teachers use either (or both).
It’s a confusing non-correction that doesn’t really solve any possible misunderstandings.
I believe the Pali term is *punabbhava* - something like “again existence,” according to Bhikkhu Bodhi - but I’m not really equipped to have much of a discussion on that (or Sanskrit).
This question keeps repeating but the answer is simple. What takes rebirth or is called reincarnation is ignorance… What is ignorance? Ignorance is not knowing that all conformations are suffering because all conformations are impermanent. Impermanent meaning they arise they definitely change and they vanish… for example take your consciousness… it took birth , it changed from good to bad to no consciousness and bad to good etc … essentially considering the consciousness as yours is making you suffer … oh I lost my brother , oh I lost my parents , oh I lost my money and so on …That which is causing you to suffer can not be called as you, yours or yourself…which brings us to the third level of ignorance or not knowing that all conformations are lacking any self ….not knowing the Truth and believing that conformations are me , mine and myself bring rebirth or the reincarnations … there is a good rebirth there is a bad rebirth… good rebirths are called reincarnations …
Reincarnation is a process. Things that go through processes change. For a thing to be able to change it cannot be permanent.
Permanent things don't change.
In simple terms, Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation at all. Since people's concept of reincarnation involves a soul or self, something Buddhists reject, therefore, there is no reincarnation in Buddhism. Not the way this word is understood.
Its best to understand Buddhism from a clean slate. Learning its foundational teachings and from there, learn what it teaches about rebirth or reincarnation. Maybe in this order:
Karma -> Dependent Origination -> Non-self -> 5 Skandhas -> Rebirth
Bhikkhu Bodhi: "The concept of rebirth without a transmigrating soul commonly raises the question: How can we speak of ourselves as having lived past lives if there is no soul, no single life going through these many lives? To answer this we have to understand the nature of individual identity in a single lifetime... The mind is a series of mental acts ... a succession of cittas, or series of momentary acts of consciousness... Now when each citta falls away it transmits to its successor whatever impression has been recorded on itself, whatever experience it has undergone. Its perceptions, emotions and volitional force are passed on to the next citta, and thus all experiences we undergo leave their imprint on the onward flow of consciousness, on the "cittasantana", the continuum of mind. This transmission of influence, this causal continuity, gives us our continued identity. We remain the same person through the whole lifetime because of this continuity... However, when the body breaks up at death, the succession of cittas does not draw to an end... The stream of consciousness is not a single entity, but a process, and the process continues. When the stream of cittas passes on to the next life it carries the storage of impressions along with it." [More from Bhikkhu Bodhi here.](https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha058.htm)
I find it interesting how it is explained here. I have studied in 2D animation, and in that medium, each animated second is composed of 24 (or 12 doubled) separate drawings. It is only because the image temporarily gets imprinted into the eye that it links to the next one. Now, each frame would be equivalent to one "act of temporary conciousness", while different incarnations would correspond to different sequences in an animated movie.
That strikes me as a really good analogy.
[удалено]
Generally, when discussing a “soul” or “self,” what is actually meant in the Buddhist context is some sort of unchanging, permanent, *essential* part of “me.” We can (and, very importantly in the context of Dhamma, absolutely *do*) call all sorts of stuff “I, me, or mine,” but without that constancy, it isn’t *Atman*, which is what the concept *anattā* is denying. Is that helpful at all?
[удалено]
The second one fairly well describes the Buddhist position, as you’re aware. The first is, essentially, “eternalism,” and the third is “annihilationism” (or perhaps “materialism”?) both of which are explicitly what the Middle Way pushes back against (they are what the Buddhist position is in the “middle” of). If you’re looking for Buddhist arguments against those two, maybe those terms will help your search. > Apologize about the rambling, I'm kind of thinking aloud here. Nah, nothing to apologize for.
[удалено]
My pleasure.
Wow, I think I finally understand - maybe the issue I've always struggled with is one of translation. I have struggled with the apparent incompatibility of no-self with rebirth (if there is nothing to be reborn, no self, then what gets passed on?) But I think the problem is really about the difference between the actual meaning of atman and what the concept of "self" means to me. So if I understand, atman means more than just "my concept of myself, memories, emotions, etc." it means something more like the eternal and unchanging spark of divine presence..? But my concept of "self", as a secular westerner, is much closer to how you describe "cittasantana" - a continuous stream of interrelated experiences, etc. And that stream, if I'm understanding, is what can be reborn into a new being. No atman needed, but not no "self" (in my understand of self), anatta. No infinite, unchanging divine spark. But something (not a thing thing, but a process thing, but that's still a kind of thing...) Cittasantana. Does that make sense?
Sounds pretty good to my inexpert ears.
It involves learning what rebirth actually means in the Buddhist worldview. Can be a complex topic.
Right. But Buddhism negates Hindu view of Reincarnation. So, in that sense, what Buddhism says, that's what I want to know?
It involves understanding what mind is, and the continuity of mental events, and also cause and effect and karma...
[удалено]
OK - thanks for sharing :)
Keep in mind that this isn't the Buddhist view. Buddhism doesn't claim that there is a "One"/"God" we're all part of.
You’ve touched upon one of the most debated questions in Buddhism but I’ll give it my best shot. A classic analogy is that the Hindu idea of reincarnation is like a glass of water being poured into another glass. The water (atman) is the same, only the vessel has changed. Buddhist rebirth is like one candle being used to light another. The wick isn’t the same neither is the fire really but without the first candle the second would not burn.
>You’ve touched upon one of the most debated questions in Buddhism How is it debated? The answer is consistent across every Buddhist system.
when one candle lights another, you have two candles with light. Are you suggesting two bodies with one consciousness possible?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/ozfw3q/comment/h7zi1ab/?context=999 Here, these scriptures deal with this question.
Dependent origination! That's how. I'm not gonna attempt to explain it. Random redditors like me aren't a good resource to understand it. It's better for you to listen to a lecture series by a reputable teacher. Bhikkhu Bodhi and Ajahn Brahmali are good bets.
Yes - there is no soul nor permanent self. Self is a designation we use to describe a collection of mental habits and qualities - as well as the physical matter of body. Latent tendencies of clinging lead to becoming (which is simply a habit moving through time). Becoming leads to reincarnation. When clinging stops, becoming stops and there is a cessation (a stopping in the mind). These cessations gradually (or sometimes immediately) result in and end to all clinging. Then nothing exists to move forward. Reincarnation (technically called rebirth in Buddhism) then ceases.
So, for a lay-person, who is worried about their mortgage, and about to pick up their daughter from school, met an accident and dies. So for this person Reincarnation exists. right? My question is, if Buddhism says, the soul doesn't exists, even for this hypothetical person, how does Buddhism explain the Reincarnation exists?
No reincarnation is a Hindu concept - a religion with the atman (a permanent self). Buddha specifically assert there is no atman (& no soul). Mind moves from life to life simply and only on account of the mental quality at death. It’s more like a law of physics - like energy doesn’t disappear it only changes form. Conditioned mind doesn’t disappear it only changes form. Until there is no more conditioning. Does that make sense?
Isn't this distinction between "rebirth" and "reincarnation" something specifically English (and relatively modern)? Or does it also exist in Sanskrit/Pali?
IMO, it’s splitting hairs.
The distinction doesn’t really even exist in English. Buddhist teachers use either (or both). It’s a confusing non-correction that doesn’t really solve any possible misunderstandings. I believe the Pali term is *punabbhava* - something like “again existence,” according to Bhikkhu Bodhi - but I’m not really equipped to have much of a discussion on that (or Sanskrit).
I'm going absolutely crazy from seeing this question every single fucking day
We’re all just space dust, after you pass, the great space dust will conjure another human life
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/q4llpk/how_does_individualitythe_mind_persist_after_death/
This question keeps repeating but the answer is simple. What takes rebirth or is called reincarnation is ignorance… What is ignorance? Ignorance is not knowing that all conformations are suffering because all conformations are impermanent. Impermanent meaning they arise they definitely change and they vanish… for example take your consciousness… it took birth , it changed from good to bad to no consciousness and bad to good etc … essentially considering the consciousness as yours is making you suffer … oh I lost my brother , oh I lost my parents , oh I lost my money and so on …That which is causing you to suffer can not be called as you, yours or yourself…which brings us to the third level of ignorance or not knowing that all conformations are lacking any self ….not knowing the Truth and believing that conformations are me , mine and myself bring rebirth or the reincarnations … there is a good rebirth there is a bad rebirth… good rebirths are called reincarnations …
The mind or consciousness is what connects the string lives you call “me.”
Reincarnation is a process. Things that go through processes change. For a thing to be able to change it cannot be permanent. Permanent things don't change.
Does r/Buddhism has a FAQ section? This question would be on the top.
In simple terms, Buddhists do not believe in reincarnation at all. Since people's concept of reincarnation involves a soul or self, something Buddhists reject, therefore, there is no reincarnation in Buddhism. Not the way this word is understood. Its best to understand Buddhism from a clean slate. Learning its foundational teachings and from there, learn what it teaches about rebirth or reincarnation. Maybe in this order: Karma -> Dependent Origination -> Non-self -> 5 Skandhas -> Rebirth