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.

I've started my practice as a Buddhist. Currently, I've read a few books about Buddhism particularly the Theravāda lineage for myself it seems more appropriate. While reading about kamma one thing started to bug me. It is said rebirth is conditioned by kamma. Which implies my good deeds may lead me to be born as human for example, while bad ones as mosquito. Homo Sapiens are on Earth for circa 200 000 years. Does that mean more than 1 million years ago no one could reach Nibbana, since there were no modern humans?

Are the Buddha's words the source of the Pali Canon? What evidence is there of the Pali Canon's origin? What do scholars say?

I find that a good number of believing Christians and Muslims think that Satan literally exists and is a very real actor in the real world. Is "Mara the Evil One, the Tempter" a rhetoric device in Buddhist tales -- a personification to enable the construction of a certain kind of parable? Or is "Mara" understood by contemporary Buddhists as an evil being who actually exists in the physical plane that we inhabit?

There are many repetitions of categorization of the different worlds in the Pali Canon that make me a bit confused. I'm not trying to rationalize them as metaphorical or as a "later addition to the scriptures". I am also not searching for a confirmation. The universe is probably endless and we percept only a tiny fraction of waves coming to our ape senses. There could be myriads of other planes and beings that are present but undetectable with any human-made tools and observable only by an enlightened mind. But why did he even bother to start on this topic? He wisely answered with Noble Silence to other existential questions that could bring additional disputes and disagreements (like the Buddhist cosmology does today in "Buddhism vs. Scientific Worldview" debate despite scientists allow themselves to make up concepts like "Boltzmann brain" or "multiverse" without any issues). And then there is this strict distinction between these worlds although they are not even "real realms" but a flow of dependently originated events. Like we're saying "human world" and "animal world" but in the modern eyes they are not even separate. So what am I missing? Why the Buddha couldn't reduce it to "bad karma leads to hellish worlds, good karma leads to heavenly worlds" but went for this detailed naming and descriptions of beings, deities living there?

There are many varieties of delusion, and probably many ways to categorize them. I’ve heard one way of categorization that was interesting. This was from Alex Berzin. (Alex Berzin often talks from the perspective of Prasangika Madhyamaka , but here he was talking in very general terms .) He said there are two main forms of illusion/delusion/ignorance (Berzin uses the word 'unawareness'). 1. Doctrinally based illusion/delusion/ignorance. This one is based on something one has learned. F.ex. one might believe that God is the creator of the universe and that one has an irreducible ever lasting soul that is either going to heaven or hell. Or – more common, at least in the Western secularized societies – one might believe in science and assume that science is objectively right and think that if something cannot be measured scientifically it simply do not exist (an example here might be some behaviorists claim that consciousness is a superfluous concept and emotions are behavior). 2. The other form is "automatically" arising illusion/delusion/ignorance. This is not based on something you have heard or learned or indoctrination, but rather based on our karma. An example might be the feeling and belief that I have a core self, something that is holding all experience together, the “stuff that makes me me.” The belief that external reality is independent and self-existent, not imputed by mind, is another example. I’ve been thinking about this and it seems to me that all kinds of illusion/delusion/ignorance could be categorized as forms of *superstition*. Is Buddhism really all about recognizing that we have always been superstitious? Does the Buddha talk specifically about illusion/delusion/ignorance as superstition in the suttas?

Many people believed certain Paritta/Sutta have certain magical power, for example Bojjhanga Sutta for curing illness and Om Mani Padme Hum having a great (even greatest) magical power among other Mantra (i refer Mantra to Mahayana tradition and Paritta to Theravada tradition). What do you think about this? Does the Buddha has spoken **by Himself** - that His follower can re-chant his words (Sutta/Mantra) to gain specific magical power? If He has, please kindly tell me what Sutta is it, Note : Please dont be offensed, i love listening to Sutta, but im curious about this one.

Buddhist scripture describes other worlds (i.e. "The Thirty-one Planes of Existence "), with various kinds of beings who may interact with our human world in varying degrees. - Do Buddhists accept the modern view of the universe , consisting of galaxies, solar systems, planets, discovered experientially by astronomers with their telescopes (which the Buddha and his followers don't seem to have thought about or discussed very much)? If so, how do Buddhists reconcile this modern view of the universe with the 31 lokas and their other-worldly inhabitants? - Do Buddhists feel that if the Buddha and Buddhist gurus did not speak or think about some things (for instance, about "the modern view of the universe" such as galaxies or solar systems), maybe those things aren't worth speaking or thinking about?

According to Buddhism, is the Mind (known by Citta, Manas, Vinnana or any other name that corresponds to Mind/Consciousness) connected with the organ called Brain? Is the brain (or loosely speaking, head) referred to in Buddhist writings as the seat of mind, consciousness or the cause of human behaviour?

In his talk titled, Science at the Crossroads , the Dalai Lama said, > On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be. 1. With specific reference to the last line: in the "Buddhist investigation of reality", when does empirical evidence "triumph over" or even challenge, scriptural authority? 2. Is the Dalai Lama's point of view confirmed or contradicted by other points of view in the scriptures, or in the talks and writings of recent Gurus?

Before Siddhartha Gautama attained Enlightenment, did he have a normal human body with normal human attributes? Or was his body anatomically different or superior to yours and mine in its physical attributes? If different, in what ways was it different? Before Enlightenment, did Siddhartha Gautama have a **mind** (or mental/spiritual capabilities) that was different from a normal human mind? If his mind differed from yours and mine, in what ways did it differ? What do scriptural writings and recent gurus say about this? What are your own thoughts about this?

In this answer , I was told, > Many Mahayana schools of Buddhism, including at least *some* Zen sects and *some* Tibetan Vajrayana lineages, understand the supernatural as skillful means (*upaya*), i.e. useful metaphors/simplifications pointing to aspects of "reality". Assuming this to be true, can these schools of thought discard the supernatural aspects (which we may refer to as "myths of Buddhism"), as such metaphors may be less useful or not useful in the modern age? In other words, may we "modernize" Buddhism as an upaya? If the supernatural elements or "myths" (such as Buddhist cosmology etc.) are skillful means rather than integral to The Buddha's teachings, then is it correct to say that "modernizing" the teachings could also be an Upaya? Has any recent guru (within the past 50 years or so) mentioned such a possibility of "modernizing Buddhism" in his writings or his speeches? Kindly give references.

How are the elements of Buddhist Cosmology (31 planes of existence, hungry ghosts/shades, angry deities, etc.) confirmed? Are there writings of recent gurus in the past 50 years or so, confirming, questioning or analyzing the elements of this cosmology in the light of modern science and their own experience? Other than faith in the ancient texts, is there any other basis for modern Buddhists to believe in Buddhist Cosmology? If so, what is that basis?

In [this answer](https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1693/254) to my question about why we keep referring to antiquated old parables and similes, Inzenity wrote, > "The scriptures are part of the teachings, the source of the teachings. It makes sense that to learn the teachings, what you call true Buddhism, they must go to the source material." The source material is not really straight from Buddha's pen, is it; nor is it even from the pens of his contemporaries or his disciples. What anybody may call source material was first committed to writing many centuries after the death of Gautam Buddha. **Isn't that's a bit like a whole bunch of us on this forum sitting down to commit to writing what was said by some guru who lived 10 generations ago, after about 500 years of oral transmission at least?** And then all that was translated from Pali into English -- possibly not in a single step either. And in between, there were commentaries in many languages, and many diverse traditions of speech and thought... **So, is it really "source material", just because it has bits and pieces of Pali tradition and ancient similes attached to it, imparting a certain quaint orientalism to the whole conglomerate? And if this body of work somehow acquired bits and pieces of Nordic or Mayan similes, parables etc, then would it stop suddenly being "Buddhist source material"?** Inzenity also wrote (about use of original explanations and logical arguments, as against the old well-worn ones from various Buddhist texts), > When they go to another person's teachings, are they still Buddhists or followers of the new guru? New religions are created this way. True that! Being original about it may mean that we may drift away from Buddhist teachings, and end up starting new religions or, alternatively, following new religions. **Are we hanging on to quaint old parables and similes and Pali aphorisms translated painfully into English, for the luxury of calling ourselves Buddhists, instead of, say, "Robertists" or "Umeshists" or "followers of Osho Rajneesh"? How sure are we that we haven't unknowingly gone to "another person's teaching" already -- those persons being numerous disciples and commentarists who willy-nilly added their own substantial philosophical DNA to Buddha's teachings, or alternatively, excised crucial teachings from Buddha's body of thought? What is Buddhism about, anyway? Is Buddhism about learning precepts about the nature of existence "at the feet of a master" as it were? Or is it about a fearless enquiry into the nature of existence, guided by numerous masters who broadly follow Buddha's school of thought, but not enchained to the philosophies of these masters?**

Buddhists often cite the research of people like Ian Stevenson or Jim Tucker in support of their views on rebirth. My understanding however is that these researchers consider their evidence supports the idea of reincarnation - i.e. that they believe in a strong form of body/mind or matter/spirit dualism which allows for the same spirit to inhabit a series of new bodies and thus retain their memories (which are perforce not stored physically in the brain, but psychically in some as yet unknown medium that is available to beings whatever body they happen to be in). Doesn't this approach contradict Buddhist doctrines on rebirth and dependent arising? Given that it conflicts with our fundamental doctrines, how do we explain the popularity of such reincarnation research amongst Buddhists?

Is there any historical third-party evidence that the Gautama Buddha actually existed? Is there historical third-party evidence that Prince Siddhartha or the Gautama Buddha existed outside of the writings of Buddhism?