SuttaCentral
I was one of them too. During that time I was an involved member of a lay sangha here in the Netherlands. As my own view changed through practice and studying the suttas, I found myself more and more on the fringe. So by coming closer to the essence of the Buddha’s teachings, I drifted further away from the essence of the local lay communities.
I’m so thankful for online communities like these, where I don’t feel like I have to play along with the rules of secular Buddhism to be welcome.
When there is nothing there to begin with, what can be reborn?
Think of a Lego ‘Car’
It breaks apart and becomes a ‘Truck’
Neither did the ‘Car’ actually exist, nor does the ‘Truck’… all that happens is that the building blocks of its temporary existence (the aggregates) undergo transformation.
Does any of those aggregates constitute a ‘Self’? Which one would you pick? How can they constitute any kind of permanent Self, when they themselves are constantly changing and dependently originated?
Yet, if the yellow blocks of the ‘Car’ get discoloured due to harsh use, the blocks of the ‘Truck’ will be discoloured too won’t they? Ah…Karma!
I used to attend a local Thai Forest group, which included several Stephen Batchlelor fans. The secular rhetoric became tiresome after a while.
The difficulty I see with the lego analogy is that it doesn’t explain why the lego car is reborn as a lego truck, as opposed to a lego boat, for example.
Presumably its due to the lego car’s kamma, but anatta says there is no lego car, just a collection of lego bricks (like the chariot simile). But where then is the car’s kamma “stored”? Is there a “kamma brick”?
To put it another way, how do the bricks know they need to reassemble themselves as a truck, once the car has been “disassembled”?
All analogies, being mere simplifications are imperfect. Say the lego car drives itself rashly and suffers a scratch on a certain brick. Now, that kamma is stored within the system of bricks itself. It need not come to fruition immediately, but it will certainly reveal itself when the conditions are right.
What causes the building blocks of Samsara to constantly reassemble themselves? Why, Craving of course and the wanting-to- be that comes from it! That illusory thing that thinks ‘I am this’ cannot bear the thought of not being… when the ‘car’ falls apart that very craving to be pulls the blocks together again into the next shape of ‘truck’ …which shape will come to be depends on the particular state of the mental factors at the time of disassembly.
Yes, “tedious” is a good description. I have no problem with people feeling that it is irrelevant to them, but I get tired of them reminding me that it is irrelevant…
What I find curious is that some people who are quite negative about the idea of rebirth enthusiastically promote ideas such as interconnectedness, a universal “knowing” that is outside of the aggregates, etc. They seem happy with some “non-scientific” phenomena, while rejecting others…
Has anyone else come across this?
My guess is (also based on how I used to be) that ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ are the stabiliser wheels of the bicycle of western identity. People have a sense that the field may be more open and feel the need to move more freely and flexibly, but they truly doubt that they can stay upright with beliefs not supported by rationality and science. Interconnectedness fits in with what we know of systems, biology etc in a way that rebirth does not (yet).
I can understand how a “soul” would crave further existences, but I struggle with this idea of disembodied craving.
If the “I” is illusory, then what is it that does the craving?
What irks me is continually being told that rebirth is an inferior teaching aimed at pujjhanas. Such comments are generally made by people who obviously don’t regard themselves as mere pujjhanas. 
If we want to think as Buddhists - Consciousness is an illusory factor. Nama - Rupa too is illusory, impermanent, dependently originated.
One depends on the other. The association is powered by Craving, which is the driving force behind the entire cycle of DO.
If we were to think as Physicists - Where do subatomic particles come from? They appear out of nowhere, based on the conscious act of observation. Yet the observer too is made up of subatomic particles- which come from nowhere. What is the factor that causes energy to become matter and vice versa? That is craving.
There’s this great analogy to how plants grow new plants without any permanent thing crossing over:
kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture.
from an3.77
But it still might not be satisfactory for you 
Or maybe he just doesn’t believe in it and prefers to have practice without it? I cannot imagine teacher who doesn’t believe in rebirth teaching rebirth. That would be insincere.
I know I’ll regret it…
It’s not satisfactory to anyone who instead of believing would prefer to understand.
If nothing crosses over then what’s the point of getting out of the “round of rebirth”? “You” are not in it, so you don’t need to get out.
If nothing crosses over then how could you remember past lives? For information to be there it either needs to be created (confabulation / hallucination) or transferred (soul, all-pervading consciousness) - where do the “memories” come from then?
Thanks, but I don’t really understand AN 3.77. And saying consciousness is the “seed” makes it sound like an entity, which grows due to the “nutrient” of craving? But in the suttas, consciousness only arises in dependence upon sense-base and sense-object, eg eye and form.
Tanha as a sort of natural force is an interesting idea. You could say that biological life has a craving (instinct) to survive and reproduce, though that instinct is a property of biological life, rather than something abstract or disembodied.
Though I don’t think this idea works when you move to the “material” or sub-atomic world.
I think those are reasonable questions to ask. I don’t think the suttas provide any clear answers, unfortunately.
Fair enough
Mind is a sense base too, right?
If one holds the underlying assumption (belief) that mind is an emergent property of matter then the buddha’s words are difficult to fit into that world view… But I would point out that there is zero evidence for that assumption/belief (some scientists recon they are getting close to evidence - for example Giulio Tononi - but, we’ll see).
spooky action at a distance …
Here’s Ajahn Brahms take:
How does anything happen without an “I” behind it? E.g. how does rain fall from a cloud without a “could entity” doing the raining?
I can’t think of any phenomena that would be better explained by adding a “thing doing it” behind the scenes 
What is it that does anything? When you hear, can you find the hearer? If not, how can you still hear?
If you relate to the teaching of anatta in this way, then it should apply to this life, too, right? “You” are not in your life, so why don’t you throw all your possessions away and abandon your duties? After all, there won’t be a “you” in the future to suffer the results. But obviously that doesn’t work. So perhaps that’s not what the Buddha meant.
The Buddha didn’t make metaphysical claims about the existence of a self. You can’t confirm the general non-existence of something because it could always be exactly where you’re not looking. He said all dhammas are not self. Which is incredibly clever because you can confirm that something isn’t found where you’re currently looking. This is how he invited us to examine anatta. Anything else is just confusing.
With regard to rebirth, death is often said to be a more dramatic instance of the change that is happening in every moment. What went from 10-year-old you to current you? 10-year-old you doesn’t exist anymore. There’s no 10-year-old @tuvok running around, being a kid. But you’re still here, not completely the same nor completely different from him. As I understand, it’s similar with rebirth, except more drastic. You’re not going to be the same person 10 years from now, but you’re still gonna think its you, just as you do now. Just as you did when you were 10. Just as you did in past lives. Metaphysical claims about a soul don’t change this. Seeing through self view is what makes a difference.
