In discussions pertaining to early Buddhist doctrine, One often encounters the Pāli term punabbhava (Skt. punarbhava) within the suttas which is frequently translated as "rebirth" or "reincarnation". ( E.g natthi dāni punabbhavo’ti. ~ SN 56.11) Both English terms however carry significant metaphysical baggage, particularly implying notions of a persisting entity (atta/ātman) which the Nikāyas explicitly problematize. Modern scholarship and traditional exegetes appear divided on its interpretation. Some interpret punabbhava in line with conventional “rebirth” models, emphasizing continuity in future lives without identity.Still others suggest that punabbhava refers less to post-mortem destiny and more to moment-to-moment existential re-arising conditioned by craving. Questions for consideration:- 1. Are there any passages in the Nikāyas where punabbhava unambiguously requires a literal multi-life rebirth interpretation? 2. Conversely, are there contexts where reading it as an ongoing psychological/existential process (rather than post-mortem rebirth) better fits the textual evidence? 3. In the context of paṭicca-samuppāda, is punabbhava better understood temporally (across lifetimes) or phenomenologically (moment-to-moment arising)? 4. How do the commentaries ( e.g Aṭṭhakathā) interpret punabbhava, and should their readings be privileged in determining its meaning? 5. Is the ambiguity in punabbhava best understood as a deliberate feature of early Buddhist discourse, allowing both cosmological and phenomenological interpretations?

I don't know whether this is allowed here but I don't know where to ask this question. I am someone who examines world religions and the more I read about Buddha, I feel like he was simply another cult-leader. My main objections are the following: 1. Buddha said advanced meditation practitioners acquire supernatural abilities called Iddhis, like going through walls, teleportation, etc. something that even Theravada school admits. Now, the Randi prize is still open, if such powers are possible, let any of the thousands of Buddhist monks worldwide show the ability. I know Buddha said not to get attached to the powers, but if it is true it should be at least demonstratable. Also, Buddha himself didn't show any powers on several occasions when those powers would have been necessary. 2. Buddha preached non-violence to the point where even self defense is not allowed - he told monks to let robbers kill them but not retaliate. This is ridiculous and will definitely lead to the fall of any society if followed. Even Buddha himself didn't follow it - when Devdutta tried to kill him, he made his leg rock solid which hurt Devdutta and he died (an act of self-defense). He also rebuked wars but called kings who used to plunder and have harems as 'righteous'. He also failed to stop wars or support any form of defensive wars. Not very enlightened eh? 3. Buddha laid a lot of stress on donating to the Sangha. The politics of Sangha almost shows that it was like any other cult. Also, for the sake of royal patronage, Buddha seems to have been very diplomatic with kings. Other cults like Jains used to call out Buddhists for enjoying luxurious lives. 4. Buddha's memory of previous lives is strange - if reincarnation is not real, then it automatically makes all these claims a lie - which means Buddha was a liar. Now, one way to establish that his recollections were lies is how he claims of lives millions, billions or even trillions of years ago. Now, unless cyclical Universe is true, lives trillions of years ago can't be true. Lives around 13 billion years ago also cannot be true since the Universe was very early to host life in any form. Millions of years ago, there were no humans on this planet (unless we assume he was talking about lives in alien planets). Altogether, I find Buddha to be just another cult leader and a liar. Given this, all his flowery philosophies of compassion, mercy, non-violence, seems impractical and hollow. What are your response as Buddhists?

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 Buddhist doctrine, the teaching of anattā denies the existence of a permanent, unchanging soul or self that persists across lifetimes. At the same time, Buddhism maintains that beings are “heirs to their karma” and that intentional actions in one life condition experiences in future lives. Canonical Explanations of rebirth describe this continuity in terms of causal processes, such as dependent origination or a stream of conditioned phenomena, rather than the transmigration of an enduring entity. In other other philosophical systems that believe in reincarnation, take hinduism for example, rebirth is explained through the concept of a subtle body (sūkṣma śarīra) that survives death and carries karmic impressions (saṃskāras) across lifetimes. This provides a mechanism for why the karmic results experienced in a later life belong exactly to the same individual who performed the actions earlier. Buddhism rejects the existence of such a persisting entity. Rebirth is usually explained instead as a causal process (often compared to one flame lighting another). However, this raises a difficulty. If there is no enduring self or carrier connecting the two lives: In what sense is the person in the next life the one who experiences the results of the earlier person's karma? Why would this not effectively mean that the karma of one person is being experienced by another? In other words, without some form of persisting substrate that carries karma across lives, what prevents karmic results from being morally misattributed between different individuals? More broadly, if there is no persisting subject that carries karmic responsibility across lives, would this not make the operation of karma appear morally arbitrary or unfair?

As per title. To be more specific: The rule, or the working way of Karma - is it part of the world and thus uniquely determined within the formation of our world? Or is the working way of Karma some superior rule higher than the formation of our world, that all worlds (we know Buddhism believe there are many parallel worlds in time and space) follow a same set of Karma rule? Take as an example, SA 527 , which says: > a novice monk stole monk's 7 fruits, so he was punished by Karma, that he fell into hell for many lives, and even if he reincarnate into a human after these sufferings, hot iron bullets will penetrate his body from time to time Is such karmaphala penalty for stealing monk's fruits (i.e. falling into hell and later becoming a human penetrated by bullets), - (a) the same or similar across all worlds, or - (b) unique of our world, or - (c) unique only to Sakyamuni Buddha's era in our world? There is a similar question but not well-answered either. ------------------- Note this question is not "is Karma part of materialistic world". Karma itself is obviously bound with sentients in this world, but I want to know whether the rule of Karma also bound to us.

If, according to Buddhist doctrine, it is not the ego-consciousness but merely karmic continuity that transmigrates across rebirths, then on what grounds should one be motivated to seek liberation from saṃsāra? Since there is no enduring self that experiences the cumulative burden or existential drudgery of suffering across lives, and since the sufferings of past or future existences are not personally felt by the present individual, what compelling basis remains for the soteriological urgency central to Buddhist thought?

A friend wanted to know the Buddhist position on rebirth/reincarnation since we don’t believe in a permanent soul. Specifically, what is it that pass from this life to the next? “Karma” was my reply then. There was a look of disappointment; the answer was obviously unsatisfying. I have seen this question asked in this forum in some form or another; here (1) , here (2) , here (3) , here (4) , here (5) , here (6) and there (7) . Looking at the number of times this topic appears, I am not trying to get a definitive answer. Instead, how would you answer this question so that it can enlighten/delight/pacify someone from a non-Buddhist tradition (with some inclinations towards an eternal soul). Note that the target audience do not have a deep understanding in Buddhist concepts e.g. the 5 clinging aggregates. Hopefully, the next time another non-Buddhist friend ask a similar question, I won't turn them off but to **entice** them to investigate further. (Interestingly, looking at the tag info on rebirth in this forum, it says: “The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream”, I wonder who wrote this.)

Is it consistent to identify as a Buddhist while setting aside belief in supernatural elements described in the Pali canon such as devas , asuras , heavenly and hellish worlds, petas (ghosts), reincarnation etc.? Could one still be regarded as a follower of the Buddha if one adopts the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the cultivation of insight, but considers devas, ghosts, hell realms and rebirth as allegorical or as cultural elements of ancient India rather than literal truths? Have there been respected teachers or schools that legitimized such a pragmatic or symbolic interpretation, and are there canonical sources that suggest the path can be followed to its end without subscribing to a literal acceptance of devas, ghosts, or rebirth? Or would such a position necessarily be viewed as heretical or heterodox within the Buddhist fold?

Throughout the journey toward enlightenment and letting go of attachments, we cling to various tools given to us by the Buddha. So 'clinging to something' in general might not be bad, as long as it helps liberate from suffering. Would it be fair to say that the idea of reincarnation is then something that high attaining people cling to, in order to be liberated from fear of death? Or does the teaching primarily come from direct perception of reincarnation itself, not of it's value in liberation from suffering.

When asking around, I've never heard anyone agree that a young, healthy person should end their life by suicide. But I also don't know what reason there is for that consensus. Did Buddha teach anything regarding what makes life worth living?

From Reciting in Concert > Four kinds of reincarnation: There is a reincarnation where only one’s > own intention is effective, not that of others. There is a > reincarnation where only the intention of others is effective, not > one’s own. There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ > intentions are effective. There is a reincarnation where neither one’s > own nor others’ intentions are effective. Does it have something to do with the 31 planes of existence ?

I read the following on the internet: > The birth that is going to take place, by which I mean the past life > of the being that is going to take another birth, will do so > regardless of one deciding to have children or not. Now I have read in the suttas & Visuddhimagga certain actions respectively lead to the respective godly, human, animal, ghost & hell realms. The Visuddhimagga appears to explain how only spontaneous birth in certain heavens & hells has no physical component. Thus spontaneous birth ([opapātika](https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/opapatika)) is often defined as 'birth without parents'. Therefore, if many people chose to follow the Noble Eightfhold Path and be celibate, how will the past life beings (destined by their kamma for the human world) be reborn if there is a limited supply of embryos? Will there be more twins, triplets, etc? What do various Buddhist texts say about this question?

**This is NOT a duplicate question**. Have seen other similar questions but their questions were very different from what I am about to ask. The modern Cosmology is clear. 13.8 billion years ago, the Universe started to form, then 4.5 billion years ago the Earth was formed, then 3 billion years ago primitive forms of life was created, then 200,000 years ago early humans came to existence, and finally we have modern human civilizations about 5000 years ago. This is in sharp contrast to Buddha's claims of having past lives hundreds of thousands of years ago, millions of years ago, billions of years ago, trillions of years ago, etc when there was either no life or no humans. Buddha already lived close to the formation of human civilization, he couldn't have possibly lived so many lives given in vivid details in Jataka tales and other scriptures when there were no human civilizations or humans to begin with. So, how do Buddhists deal with this? Do they deny science? Do they think that millions of years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there was Buddha? Do they think when the Universe wasn't even formed trillions of years ago, Buddha lived a life? If you guys accept Science, does that mean Buddha lied all along? Did he just make up those stories to attract more followers?

I wouldn't have thought so in the 80's or the 90's, or maybe not so intensely. But nowadays, I frequently have to think: this person is behaving like this, like he or she is not human. And then, I had the theory that, if the world had 2 billion people before, and then 4 billion, 6 billion, and 8 billion now, where do the extra 6 billion souls come from? Do they have to come from the souls of insects, reptiles, rodents, and other animals? And then when I read the Six Paths in Buddhism , there are 6 paths of beings reincarnation: 1. God / Heaven path 2. Human 3. Demigod 4. Hell 5. Hungry spirits 6. Beasts The first 3 are Virtue paths, and the last 3 are Evil paths, and Demigod is into fighting, so they are sometimes considered to be the Evil path. So if the number of beings in each path is even, then it explains well: only 33% of people we see are the God / Heaven or Human path. The other 67% are Evil path. It could be the Hell path that would hurt people no matter what, the Hungry spirit path that are extremely selfish and always ponder how to take advantage of others, the Beast path who are apathetic to others and have sociopath personalities. Can the Six Paths correctly explain it?

My spiritual bonding and connection are very strong with my lovely mother who has passed away. We both have tremendous love for each other. 1. Can we be reunited again in the next life? Can she be born as my daughter/son & Can I be born as her son/daughter again? 2. After my death and before the new birth, can I get to meet and talk with my mom (as the Tibetan book of the dead and many NDEs suggest you can meet the loved one after death)

I have seen so many people till now who are very miserable because they were born ugly, poor, with less intelligence. And this world is cruel to ugly, poor and dumb people and there is no doubt about that, it's a fact. And I'm also one of those people who got treated badly for being ugly and unintelligent. I neither have good looks nor I've intelligence and good memory and because of that I couldn't excel in my academics as our academic success is measured by exams that test our memory. I am disgusted with this miserable life and want to get rid of this misery. There is no hope in present life but I want a good life in my next birth where I'll be blessed with beauty, intellect and good traits and devotion. What should I do in this life to get such good rebirth in my next life? Or it would be better if I didn't have to take birth in this world.

**Buddhism** 1. *Anatta* (no-self doctrine) 2. Reincarnation (death-rebirth cycle in *samsara*) How can something that *doesn't exist* reincarnate?

After a sentient being dies, it is said that it gets reincarnated in one of the realms as a human, god, animal, hungry ghost, etc. Always it is implied that one being is reincarnated as one being. Why would it not be possible for one being to be reincarnated as two or more beings (existing simultaneously). My thinking is, if form is emptiness, then there is not much difference between one body and two bodies. Then, there does not seem to be much difference between reincarnation in one body vs two bodies. In addition, if there is no such thing as the self, it seems there is no singular object (the self) which must transmigrate to a single body.

> A soul from a previous generation is reincarnated in a later > generation into a specific set of circumstances which are tailored to > engineer a rectification of a previous sin Are there instances in Buddhist scripture or history where there is a confirmation of the above statement as being typical, or being the purpose, of reincarnation? Don't know if sin prefigures in Buddhist thought or has connections to reincarnation, but the source of the quote above is drawn from Judaism and Kabbalah's conceptualization of reincarnation, which they do relate to sin.

Shall I be reborn as a girl again? I've had a rough life, gotten a CVA (Cerebrovascular Accident) recently, and am now half-paralyzed. I feel tired of living. I guess God forgot me, given all this suffering that I've faced during this horrible life.