“If there’s no self, what is reborn?” It’s confusing how to understand the traditional notion of rebirth in early Buddhism. In this video I’ll look at both parts of the question: is there “no self” in Buddhism? What sort of “self” is there? And on a traditional understanding, what is reborn? Finally I’ll turn to some of my own thoughts on the matter.
Check out my new book, A Handbook of Early Buddhist Wisdom, with a Foreword by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:
If you find this material useful, check out my Patreon page and get fun benefits like exclusive videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes:
You can also make donations through:
Free mini-course at the Online Dharma Institute: onlinedharma.org.
Check out my podcast with Jon Aaron, Diggin’ the Dharma:
Videos recommended:
Buddhism and Rebirth, a History — the Buddha Teach No Self? —
Who Are You? The Five Aggregates of Buddhism —
What is Dependent Origination in Early Buddhism? —
Consciousness and the Self: One Early Buddhist Monk’s Famous Mistake —
Suttas mentioned:
Further resource:
Anālayo, “Rebirth and the Gandhabba” —
Webpage:
Facebook:
Mastodon:
Twitter:
Thanks to Patreon Patrons:
Aziz Rahman
John Oborne
Anonymous (3)
Scarlett Farrow
Jimmy Maa
Debbie Mattison Fine Art
Steve H.
Ron Peat
Carlos Gutierrez
Matthew Smith
JC
Shantha Wengappuli
Karma_CAC
Johan Thelander
Jorge Seguel
Christopher Apostolof
GailJM
Brett Merritt
David Bell
T Pham
VCR
Upayadhi
Andi and Erik
ATGuerrero686
Michael Scherrer
Michael Seefeld
khobe schofield
Alex Perdomo
Benji Forsyth
Blaze Way
Sonny Flink
Steve Marlor
Joy L Lee
Andrew Tom
Anthony Tucker
Karlee R
Ethan M
Billy in Singapore
Matthew G Mynttinen
Olivia Otter
Carl Lennartson
xiao mao
Jeff Harvey
Andrew Ingrouille
Kenneth Grandchamp
Doug Fonner
Rene Gariepy
Russell Needham
Smoggyrob
Mac Roja
Bernardo
Clémence Ortega Douville
Kwan Alex
Scott Johnston
Richard J Beninger
Daniel F.
Nathanael O. Arnquist
SaturnianMandala
Jacob Galea
Trin P
Letesa Isler
Dave Gorman
Dorien Izel
Robert Paterson
DunJing
00:00 Intro
01:36 First, is there “no self”?
04:33 What is the “self” in Buddhism?
08:06 Second, what is reborn?
08:36 The role of the “gandhabba”
13:46 Consciousness is impermanent
15:09 Answering the question
16:53 My personal take
17:47 It’s important to understand anyway
Note: as an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!
source
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: https://www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
📙 You can find my book here: https://books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
All that you say fits with how I understand "life". I am a temporary bloom, if you will, a process well described by the 5 aggregates. But my individual and temporary existence is predicated upon being a part of a much larger process – the emergence and evolution and history of the human race. And that is dependent upon the other living beings that we share the planet with, or existed before us. And these are dependent upon the planet's existence itself. I could go on along this chain and point to the solar system, etc etc but you get the point. A vast karmic web.
It would be interesting to know what is beyond all this, if anything. But that is perhaps beyond human knowing (in our current configuration?). I am content to leave afterlife speculation to others, and focus on this life. No immortal soul or rebirth necessary. The karmic chain of all these things is quite visible and real however. Past affects and causes future.
In buddha dharma the self stands for the actual idea that one would live once and for all, that'it.
Eventually, the no self question would rather answer that philosophical dilema why something rather than nothing.
In short, there is no real answer! “A series of causes and conditions” doesn’t really explain it . But thank you for reviewing what the Buddha said about the topic 😊
Correct me if I got this wrong, but how I understood this rebirth cycle is that it's essentially a philosphycal take on life as a chain of bio-chemical reactions. Because life as we know it is basically a self-sustaining bio-chemical reaction 'able to' reproduce, or rather, to 'keep going' endlessly, keep 'rebirthing' endlessly, but not within a constant unit or a constant 'self'. The stream analogy would also apply here. So in my understanding, rather than calling it 'rebirth' or 'reincarnation', a more intuitive way of describing it would be 'continuity'
Okay this guy is Jewish. 😏
It sounds like a fair amount of semantic gymnastics to me. Also, if you believe NDE reports (and there are thousands of them) it seems obvious that we continue in some form of individuality after our mortal death Many of these experiencers relate they retain knowledge of the fact of reincarnation. Even after listening to this and many other Buddhist explanations, it seems to me that the concepts of reaping personal karma and REincarnation depend on a continuing form of self or soul.
May all of the foxes find peace!
In ancient India…
But we're not in ancient India. No Abrahamic religions, for example, believe in a permanent, unchanging soul.
There is no reincarnation.
I know that for a fact.
Man’s primitive mind is confused and cannot understand the reality and depth of our existence as human beings on earth.
We have and live but one life.
“Our purpose in life is to leave behind our best possible imprint on the timeline of eternity.”
~ KS Wusqom ~
So does consciousness exist independent of the brain?
The following is probably NOT Buddhism.
-The physical is the impermanent, the spectacle, the movie, the song, the acting.
-The spectator watching the show is the conscious element.
So, what finishes or vanishes is the impermanent, the show.
– What survives is the spectator, the always here and now.The non-physical conscious unit, the true 'I'. Feb/25/26
Is it the same consciousness that is being reborn? If yes, then there is a permanent self, if not, then when you die you blow out and someone else will continue experiencing the stream of karma you acquired, making nirvana pointless. It's an idea so contradictory that even if Buddhists claim not believing in the self, they can't help but use "quote unquote us" or "quote unquote person" or "quote unquote is" simply because there's no other way to refer to the self that obviously exist. I don't respect Buddhism because to do that would mean to respect contradiction, and therefore, to respect lies and untruths. It's a pathetic idea that leads people astray from the truth. It's a disservice to humanity and the truth.
For what reasons does consciousness exist if there's no self?
Thank you 🙂
Since the Buddha did not give a definitive answer, and since there is no way to "prove" ANY of these theories, the answer should just be "I don't know." It's a much better, much more honest answer than further confusing the issue and splitting hairs with the Vedic traditions. If there's anything at all which moves on from life to life, and then eventually moves into Nibana, who cares what it's called? Just follow the Eightfold Path and you (whatever that is lol) will eventually end up where you're meant to be. Namo Buddhaya 🙏
Exactly. No self ???? Then WTF ???????
The problem with reincarnation and anatta combined together is that they are logically mutually exclusive. It only becomes not mutually exclusive when you stop using the substitution of concepts like "a person is going to be reborn", but rather would say it like "a person X forms a potential environment for a person Y, while X and Y are completely different people". But in this way people affect each other's lives all the time, like parents etc. Even if we are going to try saying "we are not the same as we were some time ago", maybe, but the continuity is present anyway, this continuity is what makes the concept of you. This continuity of consciousness is not present in any way if we are talking about reincarnation, dreams of past lives or NDE hallucinations is not a serious matter to discuss in this regard.
Also, another problem, imagine if you have a conscious individual whose consciousness is being copied. Again, if you are going to say that it's hypothetically impossible at all, it's not a serious talk anymore. But if it is possible, then the copy of the initial individual is not related to the original at all, they are their own person, their own perspective, their own consciousness, even though having the identical memory, biology and so on. You can simplify it so the consciousness is a software and the body is a hardware. If you copy/paste a software to another hardware, it will be the same from outside perspective, but it will be completely different unit. The outside observer might say "but if we cut/paste instead, then there is no problem", but there is, in cut/paste scenario it becomes just a death of the X and the creation of Y, even if they are identical. Therefore, such concepts as reincarnation, digital immortality, teleportation, etc. – are logically impossible, like it or not. Buddhism's idea of reincarnation, inherited from ancient India (there is not wonder, since Gautama lived in that time and place), basically says that both software and hardware are flawed, that suffering is an emergent feature of any conscious unit (no matter biological or future AGI/ASI), and introduces a way to at least try to hijack this flawed system. Though, the idea that the software will magically be transferred to another hardware after previous hardware was destroyed, is questionable. Even more questionable the fact that it basically gets formatted and still called a "karmic continuation".
I admire your desire to explain the Buddha’s dharma. It ain’t easy . However I think your attempt would be better if you deviate from the pali cannon somewhat and incorporate commentary from at least some of those Buddhist scholars that who unlike westerners were steeped in the Buddhist tradition AND the Hindu Vedanta tradition and who’s commentaries were contextualized within those living traditions.
But also in my opinion, leaving out the phrases ‘ the subconscious ‘ and ‘ the ego ‘ and their Patterns is a disservice to both yourself and modern thinkers. Incorporating those words and their meaning would simplify the historical dharma you’re wanting to describe.
In my opinion . 🪷
I think that historical context cannot be ignored when interpreting the Buddha's teachings. The Vedic society, in which Gautama existed, considered reincarnation as almost a fact of life. So, as Buddhism had to incorporate parts of local belief systems as it spread through Asia, its conception had to reflect the beliefs of the day. Much like scriptures the Judeo-Christian Bible mentioning the keeping of slaves as though it is a fact of life, the underlying teachings should be rooted out and separated from the historical cultural influence.
For what it's worth, my view on this is that the oneness and non-seperateness of all living beings renders the self/non-self argument pointless. There is one self. And we are all it. And we should treat each other that way. 🙏 Peace
I believe the canvas does reproduce. as in, its unlikely we live in a world of entirely p-zombies from the dawn of time till the twilight of it. and given how it makes no fucking sense, at all to develop complex systems as evolutionary processes if they provide no benefit to the survival of the system, the first person POV seems at the minimmum, a cruel joke, and at worst disadvantageous. also, we are never born in the moment we are born, "we" are born into an already running body several years old. there is no neurological correlate found with this birth at all.
does an individual carry over from body to body? no. is your first person POV and mine a oneshot that will never replicate for the entirety of time? im not yet sure. and here i take the stance of: maybe? maybe thats rebirth. open individualismseque
TLDR;
Why is there this particular locus of subjectivity at all, if it will never recur?
Out of all conscious beings that ever existed, why is reality being presented from this vantage point?
Alternatively:
If consciousness is such a common phenomenon, why should first-personness be a non-reproducible singleton?
Amazing information, the way this very tricky idea got processed is that if a person (self) burns down the forrest, the the next person (self) will have no trees, but will only experience ashes. Opposite is true when trees are being planted. And this can be tested in nature – without fail.
Oh I hoped consciousness wouldn't be reborn. The way Buddhism seems to view things our cosmic life really is torture. I prefer Schopenhauers view, who says that our consciousness is a byproduct pf our brains and therefore will not survive death, but we shouldn't be identifying with that anyway! Instead we should think of our "true self" as being the Will to Life which animated all beings and manifests itself through (among other things) as consciousness.
What's born is an organism with a powerful imagination, and that imagination says "I".
Ein Bhikkhu bei einer Trauerfeier in Hamburg vor etlichen Jahren:
"Viññāna ist, was weiter-geht…",
auf eine diesbezügliche Frage…
> vijñāna: Verstehen, alt : Bewusstsein…
zB :
(6): mana-h* vijñāna:
"(zu-)Denken(-stets) Verstehen:
Der Sechste Sinn…
(7): klis*t*a-mana-h* vijñāna:
"Ver_an_lag_er_ung_-en Verstehen" :
s.a z. kleśa : plaque (!)…
"Anlage-n ,
Veranlagung-en, An-lagerung-en, Ab-lagerung-en,
Verlagerung -en,
Lagerung -en,
Lage -n
Verstehen:
negativ wie-auch positiv (!)…
Die Böse(-n) Sieben
(: Emotion-en: als > Archont-oi:
"Baumeister"
Der Antiken Gnosis…)…
Der Siebte Sinn…
(8): â-laya vijñāna: All-em von-und-bei All-em im-All All-er von-Anfang bis-Ende (â-)
Lage, Gelegenheit (: la)
bringen//werden (_-ya)
Verstehen:
Ende
Weltlichen
(: laukika < loka :
Ward//Ort ;
Wart-e, Erwart-en, Erwartung-en :
Welt/"Welt"…)
Erfahrens und Erinnerns, Erlebens…
jedoch verbunden weiter über
Bodhisattva (9) mit Höherem…
Der Achte Sinn…
(9): â-mala vijñāna: All-em Streben-s-Grund Veranlassung Verstehen ( zum > ārya mârga zB) …
Bodhisattva/u.a. -Ebene…
Der Neunte Sinn…
Dharma-Nirmân*a-kâya-m Buddha-s,…bis hier hin…
Der Neunte Sinn…
(10): âdāna vijñāna All-es Ergebnis Verstehen:
Mahâ-Man*d*ala-m :
Dharma -Sambhoga -Kâya -m Buddha-s…
Der Zehnte Sinn…
(o): Tatha-tâ: So-Sein Tathâgata Buddha-s…
Dharma -Kâya-m Buddha-s…
The Full Breath by James Francis is a great book for all seekers. It will show you the way in simple terms. The key to awakening is the realisation of the inner guide. All the time you follow you will never find the way. Look inside of yourself to discover your true self. What you seek is not outside it is inside of you and always has been.