Philosophical arguments for rebirth

[Malunkyaputta]

@yeshe.tenley

It is my hypothesis that anatta properly understood acts as a support for the doctrine of rebirth.

You would first have to define annata and rebirth. Then in a second step, you would have to explain what integral part of the current being it is that will be reborn.

Also interested to know how exactly you think that rebirth logically follows just from the fact of annata.

[yeshe.tenley]

Ah, it is a really difficult thing to relate and probably this forum isn’t the place to try. I also doubt my own skill or ability to relate it. Most likely I’m just very confused.

[DonatorProponent]

@Malunkyaputta

what integral part of the current being it is that will be reborn.

Why does there need to be an “integral part” for you to be reborn?

I’d really recommend you read the essay I linked earlier. You may still not be convinced, but at least you’ll be aware of the argument.

[josephzizys]

@DKervick

All of these speculations about what might happen to the psychic stuff or psychic energy of our minds following our deaths - even assuming that dualistic picture of the ontology of our mental lives is not utterly deluded in the first place - are very interesting and fun. But they are just speculations.

I am not sure this is correct, firstly @Javier is attempting to make an argument not make a speculation, and these are different things, philosophical arguments are not just “speculations”, they have reasons and arguments that seek to give evidence to their conclusions.

Also, outside the philosophical arguments, there are also empirical ones, like those described here;

Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics?

Again, it is simply not true to say that this is mere “speculation”.

(edit: lol, I hadn’t noticed that this thread is form 2017 )

[Dunlop]

@yeshe.tenley

It is my hypothesis that anatta properly understood acts as a support for the doctrine of rebirth. This is counter to the usual claim that the doctrine of anatta makes rebirth untenable or that there is some tension between the doctrine of anatta and rebirth. I’ll go so far as to say that my hypothesis is that anyone attempting to assume the truth of non-rebirth will arrive at contradiction and reductio ad absurdum. This is not the same hypothesis as what Dharmakirti put forth.

Venerable Yeshe. A sutta I read MN 135 say a certain person is reborn. Another sutta SN 22.59 said anatta leads to the ending of birth. Rebirth must contain belief in self otherwise the results of kamma cannot be reaped. Rebirth only happens to the mental continuum or stream of consciousness that still believes in self. If attachment to self leading to heaven or hell did not happen with rebirth, why would a Buddhist aspire to perform good actions for a good rebirth if they are not the self to receive the results of their well-intentioned actions? I think it is believing anatta phenomena are reborn that is nihilistic contradiction and reductio ad absurdum. Anatta leads to non-birth. Atta leads to becoming & birth. This is Buddha’s teaching.