Growing up, I had a general understanding—based on lay textbooks and common interpretations that the dharmic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism all believe in reincarnation: the idea that an individual is reborn into a new body, either human or animal, after physical death of the body. As I became more interested in Buddhism and tried exploring it more deeply, I noticed that different Buddhists seem to explain this concept in very different ways. Some use the word "reincarnation" and appear to mean it quite literally, while others insist that "rebirth" in Buddhism is not the same as reincarnation, especially since Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent self. This has left me quite confused. Is rebirth just another term for reincarnation, or does Buddhism teach something fundamentally different? What is the correct way to understand the concept of rebirth in Buddhist teachings?

In particular, does Buddhism think that rebirth is a solution to a human need, or is it a mechanic to how the universe works? And is rebirth a type of regeneration? In my interpretation of Buddhism, rebirth is the means by which pain does not last forever, because according to type theory, pain should be eternal.

The sutta below states that eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are old kamma. Why are these called old kamma (*purāṇakammā*)? Is it because of rebirth? Or could there be other reasons? If rebirth is the only reason, then I feel that this explanation seems too simple. From SN 35.146 : > And what is old kamma? > > The eye is old kamma. It should be seen as produced by choices and > intentions, as something to be felt. > > The ear … nose … tongue … body … mind is old kamma. It should be seen > as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt. > > This is called old kamma. > > And what is new kamma? > > The deeds you currently perform by way of body, speech, and mind. > > This is called new kamma. (I replaced "action" with "kamma")

Even though the Pali Suttas appear devoid of the idea masculinity & femininity are results of past kamma, such ideas appear to remain fertile in worldly Buddhism. I read the following on the internet: > I think this is pretty obvious. Karma functions as a universal law and > our situation, the form we are born in is decided by karma. One of the > sexes is naturally more advantageous than the other, despite women > having an easier time in modern society, even just anatomically they > are less fortunate. **Then of course like the Buddha explained, women > are unable to shake their desire for sex, reproduction** and no Buddha > will be born in the form of a woman. Indicated males are more > advantageous. Also hence why there are more vinaya rules for women If the above is true and if desire for sex and reproduction is the cause of rebirth as a woman, what is the cause of rebirth as a man (including as men with multiple wives, as mentioned in SN 55.7)?

[This answer on Reddit](https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/12flgq9/what_are_some_arguments_for_reincarnation_from_a/jfgry4f/) gave a basic outline of [Dharmakīrti's argument for rebirth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)#Metaphysical_arguments) in the form of a syllogism: 1. Matter and consciousness are metaphysically different, their characteristics and nature are different 2. An effect must be of the same nature as its substantial cause 3. Thus consciousness cannot arise from or be produced by matter (1, 2) 4. Conclusion: Therefore, there must have a been a consciousness prior to any person's conception which causes the first moment of consciousness in this life For the sake of the question, let's assume that you accept this line of argumentation. The question then becomes, how did the first mental event arise according to this framework? Of course, there is the idea that many immaterial intellects exist in the transcendent realms some of which stretch beyond iterations of the universe and many eons, but at the same time, for there to be so many creatures on just this planet with consciousness would implicate that billions upon billions, if not more, immaterial entities survived the past iteration(s) and eons and made it to this one, and also never achieved enlightenment during that time, which seems highly implausible. Perhaps the Yogacara idea of the store-house consciousness must be of use here, but it would be difficult to prove, I'm not too sure. If anyone knows more about Dharmakīrti's thinking with regards to this, please share your knowledge.

Sujato's translation of MN 72, similar to other translations of MN 72, says: > That’s why a Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, > cessation, giving up, and letting go of all conceiving, all churning, > and all I-making, mine-making, or underlying tendency to conceit, I > say.” > > Tasmā tathāgato sabbamaññitānaṁ sabbamathitānaṁ > sabbaahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayānaṁ khayā virāgā nirodhā cāgā > paṭinissaggā anupādā vimuttoti vadāmī”ti. > > “But worthy Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where > are they reborn?” > > “Evaṁ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṁ upapajjatī”ti? > > “‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” > > “Upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”. > > “Well then, are they not reborn?” > > “Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī”ti? > > “**‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply**, Vaccha.” > > “**Na upapajjatīti kho**, vaccha, **na upeti**”. > > “Well then, are they both reborn and not reborn?” > > “Tena hi, bho gotama, upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatī”ti? > > “‘They’re both reborn and not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” > > “Upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”. > > “Well then, are they neither reborn nor not reborn?” > > “Tena hi, bho gotama, neva upapajjati na na upapajjatī”ti? > > “‘They’re neither reborn nor not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” > > “Neva upapajjati na na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”. > > [MN 72](https://suttacentral.net/mn72/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) Why are Arahants not 'not reborn'?

Recently, I came across an intriguing opinion - Buddha did not believe in rebirth and that his views on the topic stem from some fake suttas. It sparked a thought in my mind that I believe strongly contradict this viewpoint. I wanted to share it with you, and also open it for counter arguments. The argument is structured as follows: if rebirth does not exist, we only live one life, and once we die, we cease to exist. Therefore, what motivation would a person have to renounce worldly attachments and endure the hardships of seeking enlightenment? One might argue that individuals pursue enlightenment to alleviate their suffering. However, it's worth noting that many people lead relatively comfortable lives, experiencing only brief periods of discomfort and ultimately facing death. In fact, those in higher social strata often enjoy luxurious lives and many find fulfillment in them. Given this context, there is no objective reason for them to even considering renouncing their comfortable existence in pursuit of enlightenment? Therefore, if there is no rebirth, enlightenment becomes optional - much like learning mathematics, whcih although is beautiful, is nonetheless optional. We could potentially choose to live our lives and simply "power through" until the end, and be done forever. Or even worse, kill self and be “at peace” forever. If that were a solution, Buddha (assuming he was smart and well intentioned) would have proposed pursuit of enlightenment only to people in bad mental/physical conditions - but he did it universally - which says that its not true. This reasoning is quite convincing to me. I would appreciate hearing any arguments towards non-existence of rebirth and significance of enlightenment assuming it. Your insights are very much appreciated.

I read the following on the internet: > If there is a Buddhist monk or nun who declared openly that rebirth > does not exist then I believe they would be asked to disrobe. If they > refused then they would be ostracised by the community. I also read the following on the internet by a monk named Yuttadhammo: > The entire premise of your question is faulty, unfortunately. The > Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as > "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against > orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, > it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not > rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old. > > [Internet](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10113/8157) Is denial of 'rebirth' a Parajika offense? Please provide answers from Sutta or Vinaya?

In Buddhist philosophy, particularly within various schools like Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Yogācāra, the concept of saṃsāra (cyclic existence) is central characterized by suffering, ignorance, and rebirth. A key metaphysical question arises: How did bondage—the state of being trapped in cyclic existence begin? Was there a specific point in the past time or cause that marked the start of sentient beings' entrapment? Or conversely, is bondage considered beginningless, similar to the doctrine held by certain Vedānta schools which maintain that ignorance (avidyā) has no beginning but can have an end?

When Buddhist texts mention "realms of rebirth", it sounds like you are only living in those realms and not actually becoming one of the inhabitants. Like for example being reborn into the Deva realm, you reborn and live there but aren't reborn as a Deva. Could somebody help me?

How do I interpret the term "realm" (*idha* ) in AN 10.63 ? It says one who has "seven rebirths at most" will conclude their path in "this realm". So, what is "this realm"? And what does this mean? Meanwhile "one who is extinguished between one life and the next" will conclude their path after "leaving this realm behind" (*idha vihāya *). What does this mean? > “Mendicants, all those who have come to a conclusion about me are > accomplished in view. Of those who are accomplished in view, five > conclude their path in this realm, and five conclude their path after > leaving this realm behind. > > Which five conclude their path in this realm? > > The one who has seven rebirths at most, the one who goes from family > to family, the one-seeder, the once returner, and the one who is > perfected in this very life. These five conclude their path in this > realm. > > Which five conclude their path after leaving this realm behind? > > The one who is extinguished between one life and the next, the one who > is extinguished upon landing, the one who is extinguished without > extra effort, the one who is extinguished with extra effort, and the > one who heads upstream, going to the Akaniṭṭha realm. These five > conclude their path after leaving this realm behind. > > All those who have come to a conclusion about me are accomplished in > view. Of those who are accomplished in view, these five conclude their > path in this realm, and these five conclude their path after leaving > this realm behind.” > AN 10.63 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

My first exposure to Buddhism was watching [Seven Years in Tibet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years_in_Tibet_%281997_film%29) in my German childhood. Most memorable were the following two scenes of Buddhist monks in orange robes. In the one scene, some monks were carefully making a large picture out of coloured sand in a room with large windows. Upon completion (after one year of labour), the monks would simply open the window to let the wind carry the picture away. In the other scene, monks were very carefully turning soil. Apparently the monks had to be especially careful not to harm any earthworms, because, according to their belief, **their mothers would be reincarnated as earthworms**. Needless to say, I found it very arbitrary at best that _mothers_ should be reincarnated as _earthworms_ and was troubled by this first impressions for the next decade or so. Unfortunately, I still haven't been able to solve this mystery. So my question is, as it has been for many years, is there any connection between _mothers_ and _earthworms_ in Buddhism?

It seems the goal of Buddhist practice is to become an Arahant - someone who won't take a rebirth, and therefore will be eternally relieved from suffering. But WHO is this someone who doesn't get reborn? I mean if there never was a self to begin with, then who exactly achieved Nirvana? Seriously, this line of thought is screwing up my motivation. All this work, just so someone who doesn't exist yet, and never will, doesn't have to suffer. Buddhism doesn't promise relief from suffering in the current lifetime, in fact it guarantees us we'll all die, and most of us will suffer from sickness and old age (not to mention loads of other suffering), but it promises an end by not taking a rebirth - but the whole concept of rebirth is made utterly confusing by the concept of non-self.

Anatta is often described as "not-self" which I understand to mean that our identities are illusions. But it's also described as "soullessness" which I think implies that there is no mind other than the brain itself. But many Buddhists believe in rebirth. If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?

I find it difficult to assign a meaning to the word 'rebirth'. Here are some hints that rebirth might not be real: - Views regarding one's past and future existence are included in the "62 false beliefs" - Those views are ascribed to non-Buddhist ascetics - Views regarding the future of the Tathagata (after death) are in the 10 or 14 "unanswered questions" - The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth? - If rebirth happens that seems difficult to prove by personal experience; is it an article of faith, not something one can verify by direct experience? If so isn't that (faith instead of experience) unusual in Buddhist doctrine (isn't doctrine meant to be measurable against one's experience of the world)? Or if it is experience, what kind of experience (of other lives) is it, how are you supposed to know that so-called experience is not just a dream? - [This web site](http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm) (which seems to be Thai) says that rebirth is a "parable" for "simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha". It says that "Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person" and "This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism." The end of that page suggest that people "lower themselves into hell" or "rise to the Enlightened state of the Buddha" *in this life*. I think I remember reading, sometime in the distant past, than when someone asked the Buddha about the afterlife, he replied "I'm not here to talk to you about the afterlife: I'm here to talk to you about *this* life." Is it OK to believe, is it OK to say that a belief in rebirth isn't important to Buddhism? Not a big part of the historical Buddha's teaching? That when he mentioned it at all, it was to say that it didn't exist ("anatta" and "anicca"), that he didn't expect to be doing it himself, and that it wasn't worth talking about? And/or is it a non-core part of Buddhism: something which some Buddhists believe and other Buddhists don't, a local/cultural viewpoint? The article [Two Main Schools of Buddhism](http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/59.htm) says, > The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows: > - Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher. - The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools. - The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. - The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the same in both schools. - Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world. - Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference. A belief in rebirth (even Karma) isn't especially on this list. I think I agree that the above are essential: that the historical Buddha talked about them, and that they're a necessary part of Buddhist belief. I agree that tales of rebirth and of other lives feature in some Buddhist literature, e.g. Mahayana literature seems to have the Buddha being reborn. I don't know a lot about Buddhism so, please, if you answer with a paraphrase of scripture, please include the name of the scripture you're quoting so that I could look it up.

The Theory of "Emptiness" is the concept that all phenomenon are empty of inherent existence. Something has the illusion of existence when the right causes and conditions arise. Example: there is no inherently existing chicken soup. You only get chicken soup when you put together a dead chicken, hot water. Veggies etc. in this theory, you illusory sense of self comes from the right causes and conditions, parents, a body, a brain etc. following this logic, upon death, the self should simply cease to exist because that which made you a self has dissolved and since you do not inherently exist you should just vanish, and yet the Buddha is clear we take rebirth. This is illogical and makes no sense. Perhaps this is why the Buddha never taught a theory of emptiness. This idea is nowhere in the entire Pali Canon.

For those Buddhists who believe there is an intermediate state between death and our next rebirth (IIRC this can last anything upto 7 weeks), does the intermediate state *remember* what has happened to it in its last life or is it just spurred on by its traditional lusts/cravings? Suppose someone plotted my death, succeeded, and then laid waste to my orchards, could that (I'd probbaly be mad) be the motive for how I am reborn, rather than my habits? I understand that remembering past lives is not the norm, so I am reclutant to consider it a serious issue, if we believe in rebirth and religious soteriology, rather than the importance of our existential non-religious projects (and I would almost consider it a reductio ad absurdum for the latter).

Does the alayavijnana exist in the formless realms? --------------------------------------------------- Presuably, if we are reborn there. But there is no matter in the formless realms, so my crazy hypothesis for how my mental stream can reoccur outside my body (action at a distance, of gravity) seems to be disproven if the title question is yes (the alayavijnana does not necessarily include form and mass undergoing the gravitational constant). For what it's worth, I would think that supposing there is no rebirth without physical mass, then that would suffice to demonstrate that the strangeness of action at a distance (seemingly involved in post-mortem rebirth) ***itself does not preclude* the possibility of rebirth**, though of course if the identity of mind with body means this this brain is necessary for my mind, then - my mind cannot live without this living brain Currently, I do not see any other motivation for the claim that death is the end of the citta-santana, but I welcome any correction to that.

Should a person be concerned or worried where they ("I") will be reborn? Also in which way would or could a sotappana be concerned with future existence/rebirth, when he would have already been free from the fetter of strong clinging to self, as well as assured liberation.

In Buddhism having a rebirth is itself a origin of all the Dukhhas. Doesn't it imply that Buddhist laymen who are married should not have children to stop this cycle of rebirth. This leads to a more generic hypothetical question as to what happens if all people in the world stop having children? I would like to have the answer in the Buddhist perspective.