That is not a fair argument right? A few weeks from now I will still carry my memories and desires and aspirations. It is not the same thing.
3 Likes
Here seems to be the core of your own self-theory. It seems to me like you are unable to imagine a meaningful continuation of experience in the absence of your memories, desires and aspirations.
That is, to you, if someone deleted your memories, desires and aspirations, the feeling of e.g. being punched in the leg â it would be like it happened to someone else, you would not be inside that body anymore (because you were those memories, desires and aspirations).
And death is basically a deletion of memories, desires and aspirations, since the new personality is formed âfrom scratchâ with a new rebirth.
(Most of us have self-theories; this is not meant as a critique of you personally in any way.)
One way to challenge this theory would be to enter a meditation where you experience being conscious in the absence of your memories, desires and aspirations. That is, directly observing the process of some of your mental content fading away, while other parts remain. IMO, part of the role of meditation is falsifying oneâs own self-theories via direct experience.
Furthermore, I hypothesize to you that even if someone came and deleted your memories, desires and aspirations, the same delusion that made you identify with your memories, desires and aspirations, will now make you identify as a person without memories, desires and aspirations, and this will feel as personal to you now as before.
2 Likes
You have summarised by âtheoryâ if I can call it that, quite well.
What I am talking about is a sense of continuing identity/memories.
Now, to your point on deletion of memories, I tried at address that by taking the example of a person who will get amnesia. You make a similar point, but here the body provides continuity and so logically, one can say even if I donât remember myself as Ravi anymore, after memory deletion, I would want me(as in this body) to be well.
I find it difficult to extend this analogy to next life where we know there is no memory or sense of identity or physical continuity left. Why should Mr.X bother about Mr.Y of the next birth?
Now this coupled with the fact that nibbana itself is so ambiguous/impersonal, I have this question.
1 Like
Anatta is very pragmatic.
Because the âyouâ of the next life will continue to suffer. Anatta is not nihilism. There is a continuity between a being from one life to the next. Also, another prime aspect of the Buddhist path is compassion. If you canât bring yourself to have compassion for your future self, then why should you have compassion for anyone else?
It sounds like you arenât convinced by what the Buddha spoke of as the causes of true happiness. The Four Noble Truths werenât taught exclusively for the happiness of future lives. So if you want to be truly happy now, but are still asking yourself âwhy should I pursue ending of tanha instead of enjoying this life?â then you working against your own best interests.
I personally think that a lot of Buddhism wonât make much sense until someone really believes in what the Buddha taught about suffering and happiness.
It would be compassionate of you to check with yourself whether you have already arrived at the conclusion that you should not bother about your future lives, and are now looking only to confirm and rationalize that belief.
Yes, your idea of your relationship to your future life is as the relationship that you now hold to a stranger who also lives now. In your mind, there is no continutiouty of suffering. Itâs like meeting a person on the street; you can have compassion for them, but you cannot directly experience their suffering or pleasure.
To communicate with you, I have to infer your self-theory. I.e., I have to think âwhat sort of ontological beliefs about the self would a person who makes these type of statements haveâ.
Your self-theory seems to have to do with the continuity of some mental phenomena (memories, desires, etc.) and the physical body. I.e. the self is or is made up of some sort of continuity of certain mental and physical phenomena (basically some combination of the five khandas).
The thing is, you could be wrong. Your basic assumptions about the nature of your own experience and selfhood could be totally missing the mark.
However, it takes a certain kind of intellectual humility to interrogate oneâs own basic beliefs. Not everyone is into that 
Edit: What about remembering past lives? Wouldnât that âconnectâ you to your previous lives, creating one being through time?
Hi Erik!
I think an important point is that we suffer because of our attachments to certain beliefs and values that set standards for how âshouldâ life be.
Memories and desires are relevant because when they present to the consciousness some content that contradicts our standards, we suffer, because we are experiencing something we would not like to experience.
When one is born, thereâs no such thing (at least for the majority of people) as the pain from past memories and desires. In a practical sense, I do not carry the pain of past memories and desires.
However, one could argue that what goes from one life to the next is the cultural inertia that is taught to new beings, and that each one will process according to its few past experiences (from being in the womb and from the first days/weeks/months/years of being born) and biological predispositions. If we accept this view, i.e. that there are some kind of influences from past lives and from others in the present, our current understanding of how the mind works seem to deny the possibity of an exact replica of some meme with the exact linked behavior passing from one person to the other.
I agree with Raviâs doubts: itâs hard for me too to see some usefulness in the doctrine of rebirth, at least in the sense it is commonly accepted.
Kind regards!
2 Likes
If you were Mr. Y and Mr. X could see that a calamity which would cause deep suffering was about to happen to Mr. Y, then would you not want Mr. X to do his best to stop that calamity from happening if he had the ability and tools to stop it?
3 Likes
Hi bridif1
Many of us grow up with core assumptions that are at odds with the EBTs, like materialism. I think you have to be interested in questioning your own core assumptions if you want to see usefulness in the doctrine of rebirth.
One might want to do this because one sees that rebirth is an important part of right view in the EBTs.
But if someone has already decided on a certain view, there is not much point or fun in discussing 
Do you remember everything in this life? Do you remember what you had for lunch 8 years ago, the second tuesday of March?
Most peopleâs memories are just stories they keep repeating to themselves, âI was at this place 10 years agoâ, but the actual first person sensory images have long been degraded, maybe you only remember a fuzzy 5% of the original memory.
In short, if you judge your sentience or âalivelinessâ by your memories, then you may as well consider yourself dead, because what you call memories are really just fabrications (stories) that you repeat to yourself and that you assume are vaguely accurate.
What you actually call âexistenceâ is a sense of continuity of the 6 senses. Whether there will be continuity after death is unknown, no one can know, not even master astral projectors like Robert Monroe who was able to leave his body at will, as for all we know the astral body dies when the physical body dies.
So you wonât get any confirmed answers on continuity after death, but regardless the main premise of Buddhism is relief from discontent and suffering here and now.
The Buddha said that the dhamma is good in the beginning, middle, and end. So if properly understood, the Dhamma is a no brainer, itâs the best choice there is to live a present life. As the purpose of life is to maximize pleasure, and the Buddha said sublime pleasures are the best category of pleasures. Who needs pleasure when there is no pain cover up?
2 Likes
This is a great question and I will try to answer it as simply as I can. Even if you are all skandhas, you feel pain in sickness, old age, missing loved ones, not being able to get what you want and death etc., donât you? If you answer yes, then you understand what suffering is.
It is already clearly explained. Nibbana is the cessation of suffering as explained above. It is the end of continuity as Mr.X or Mr.Y without a foreseeable future.
Nibbana can be variously described. It is called ending of tanha because it is tanha for Mr.x that make Mr. x Mr.Y. Nibbana can also be called ending of identity because it is identity as Mr.X that is the culprit for actions. For example, Ravi does everything for Ravi. Even these comments are made by Ravi for Raviâs benefit. So Nibbana is the end of this unnecessary and meaningless continuity.
With Metta
This is a question I pondered upon for a long time. The Buddhism does not offer you any solace in what concerns afterlife, indeed. And for me, it is a strong - albeit purely emotional - proof of the Buddhism being true because it doesnât try to pander to our instinctive eternalistic cravings.
The answer to this question is I think in the Buddhaâs words about His ministry: He only taught about suffering and the end of suffering. If you realize how deeply the suffering runs into the fabric of your existence, then you will probably want to end it, and the Noble Eightfold Path is the only way to end all suffering for good. Even if you will not be able to eliminate all suffering in your lifetime, you may reduce it by following the Buddhadhamma, so even if there is no continuity of identity between lifetimes, you may still experience positive results of your practice here and now (I know I have).
You may not care about your future lives because of the anatta doctrine but you definitely care about âyouâ, whose existence you (in the generalized sense) take for granted and cherish so much, experiencing suffering in this very lifetime. Living a virtuous Buddhist life feels vastly superior to any immoral lifestyle one may try - and I speak from my own experience. So I trust the Buddha that the further you follow on that path in this very lifetime, the less suffering you will experience in the end.
Besides, the Buddha showed us with His own example that the further you go on this path, the more you care about other beings - and this may also extend to your new identity in your future lifetimes. So, even if you donât care about Mr. Y now, you will care about him after you have advanced on the path.
Well, the fact that you care about the i-ness / mine-ness and âenjoying this lifeâ is exactly what the Buddha saw as the root cause of suffering. For Him, every single detail in the world of sankharas, every sublime pleasure, every jhana, literally everything was just a piece of shit when you look close enough. So, there was no sense in enjoying this life because ultimately you cannot do it. This is a deeply disturbing thought, but accepting it is a very important step on the path of liberation from suffering.
You may not agree, you may feel that there are a lot of things to enjoy in your life. You may even try and enjoy them. You may also lead an immoral life and bank on a possibility that you will not reap the resulting negative kamma in this lifetime - you may even win in this casino of life. Nothing and nobody prevents you from doing so. But if you want to minimize your suffering in this lifetime, the Dhamma is the way to go.
5 Likes
Good comment Vstakan, and to add to your casino point:
letâs think about the assumed best case scenario of life, that someone wins the lottery of life and gets the best hand in life, they have the best health, billions of dollars, good looks, charismatic personality, etc⊠would the dhamma apply to them? I would say even more so, as the bigger or higher they are, the harder they fall in the end.
All those good things they are attached to will be taken from them by impermanence, it will all be lost, and if they cling to those things their emotional state will be pure hell when those things are lost. Just look at how many rich celebrities die to drugs or suicide because the more they attain materially the more empty they feel. Robin Williams for example had to pay so much in alimony, that he was in debt and had to take on movies just to afford his wifeâs expensive life style. Same with Robert Deniro. These people are tormented as a result of their wealth. Often young people who get rich quick end up killing themselves due to overdosing and depression, like Avicii and many other musicians.
When youâve had the finest food and material in life and that still doesnât solve dukkha, and in fact makes it worse, that leads to depression in a lot of rich people.
Warren Buffet is a billionaire, but he lives a very frugal life and still lives in his original home, but even he canât escape old age, sickness, death and karma. And what if rebirth is actually true? then he has to play that entire game all over again and relearn everything, sounds terrible.
So no conditioned outcome is good enough, as it is Impermanent.
3 Likes
First of all, I think you raise an excellent issue. In a way, in order to believe in the Buddhist afterlife-care I need already to believe the position of the deluded identity stuck in samsara. And why would I believe it? Because samsara-theorists tell me so. They say: âYou donât know it, but some delusion of you is infinitely old. This is causing you issues you donât even see, in future lives you donât see, and your only chance is to drop out of the delusion, so that in the future, which you donât see, you can blissfully disappear.â
I have also not seen a satisfying response to it so far, and donât have one either. My sense is that a viable promise would have the form of: âDo you suffer now in any way? I can show you how to take care of any potential suffering in the future. Full disclaimer: You wonât be there to enjoy the non-suffering any moreâ.
But then, if any potential future-life suffering disappears along with the experiencer - that doesnât touch other âpeopleâsâ suffering. What is gained in the big picture if a select few drop out? They donât enjoy the non-suffering, and the oneâs who continue to suffer donât partake in the release of the few.
Not saying this is the only way to look at it, but itâs worth to take it seriously
3 Likes
Topic of afterlife in its essence, for us(not for high minds), is speculation and a view.
We take faith in what Buddha said about it.
Same as Nibbana - about it being worthy, we donât know. But we make choices to believe in it.
We can only quote sutta on this, which is only valuable if one has faith in Buddha over their own mind.
1 Like
Really interesting thread. 
It occurs to me that OP point 1 essentially deals with who, and point 2 deals with what. Thereâs been a few posts on when e.g.
What if we contemplate further than a few weeks out - not as far as the next life, but right at the very end of this one. i.e. Instead of
âŠwe consider it as the doctrine of redeath 
. I reckon once is already plenty.
There are people who say âdying is just another moment in life like all the othersâ, but personally I suspect it will seem more significant; the pragmatic thing to do is to prep for it.
From the TaáčhÄ sutta:
Mendicants, there are these three cravings. What three? Craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence.
Unfortunately, even the 3rd option will be no solace on my deathbed because as this guy commented:
I must almost be at the quote quota, but one more:
Because aside from dying in my sleep, I canât imagine a better state to be in than âIâve let go of everything, am ready to die, but am also ready to (re)live if that turns out to be a thingâ. The N8FP appears to be my best option to achieve that goal.
2 Likes
Because Mr. Y will experience the fruits of Mr. Xâs kamma. It doesnât really matter if Mr. Y remembers what was done or not. Kamma bears fruit whether we like it or not, whether we remember it or not, whether we identify with it or not. Itâs an impersonal process, a law of nature. It doesnât care about your opinion.
If youâre having trouble with this teaching now, thatâs OK. Put it aside and come back to it later. Views change as you get older.
The âvery end of this oneâ might be less than âa few weeks outâ 
But this is the problem isnât it? Iâve never known a death that wasnât tinged with sadness and loss. Even the Buddha had unenlightened beings morn for him! And of course, that jaramarana suffering is directly caused by birth - Ajahn Chah once suggested that we should cry when someone is born rather than when they die.
If we canât be compassionate to our potential future-selves and not put them through (if weâre very lucky) old age, (almost always) sickness and (most definitely) death, then who are we going to be compassionate towards?
I can feel a Mahayana moment coming on 
2 Likes
Hi Ravi,
I am not sure if you know that research (conducted by Dr. Ian Stevenson, Jim Tucker and many other researchers) has carefully investigated children who remember and report past lives. In these studies, children who present with memories of previous lives are extensively interviewed and if they give specific names or locations (cities, towns), the previous life individual is traced and verified using death certificates and autopsy records, etc. They have studied thousands of such cases (there are many academic articles and books written by these researchers).
These studies reveal that our likes and dislikes, attitudes and inclinations get passed on to the next life â see for example the following article:
Stevenson, I. (2000). The phenomenon of claimed memories of previous lives: Possible interpretations and importance. Medical Hypotheses, 54, 652â659.
So, if we donât reach enlightenment in this life, any practices (and insights) we develop in this life will be beneficial for our next life (this would answer your question âwhy botherâ). In one book of Dr. Jim Tucker (âLife before lifeâ?), it is stated that some children report having existed in different realms (non-human) and he says that it is difficult ignore these statements in the context of other statements that the same child has made (on previous human births) that have been verified.
Also, regarding your comments â you need to separate conventional reality from ultimate reality. Evolution (and scientific understandings) are about conventional reality, and samsara is about ultimate reality. Samsara is a process where causes and conditions are constantly leading to other causes and conditions â i.e., âcontinuity without identity.â Ultimate reality is understood through meditation practices rather than by applying simple logic.
But the suttas do show a clear sense of continuity between lives. Itâs not that the being reborn is another being with a different sense of continuity. The stream of continuity is the same.
For example Ugga gives the Buddha tasty food in hopes of a better rebirth, and then dies is reborn and the Buddha talks to him as a deva like heâs the same being.
Then, after expressing his appreciation to the householder Ugga of VesÄlÄ«, the Blessed One rose from his seat and left. Then, some time later, the householder Ugga of VesÄlÄ« passed away. After his death, the householder Ugga of VesÄlÄ« was reborn among a certain group of mind-made deities. On that occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at SÄvatthÄ« in Jetaâs Grove, AnÄthapiáčážikaâs Park. Then, when the night had advanced, the young deva Ugga, of stunning beauty, illuminating the entire Jetaâs Grove, approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and stood to one side. The Blessed One then said to him: âI hope, Ugga, that it is as you would have wished.â
âSurely, Bhante, it is as I had wished.â
If the person being reborn was a completely new being, with no sense of continuity from the previous life, then the exchange above would have not happened. The new being wouldnât know who the Buddha was, and the Buddha wouldnât address him by the same name and continue the same conversation from his previous life.
By the way, the Buddha is a total bro in that sutta, hooking a householder up with a great afterlife when he totally could have just been like ânah, not helping you get a better afterlife, itâs also impermanent, just go for Nibbana or leave me aloneâ instead heâs like, âyeah sure, go enjoy your heavenly state adventure before you attain nibbana down the lineâ.
3 Likes
Thanks for the replies. I found some comments helpful and some not so much.
Here is how finally I have come to answer it to somewhat satisfy myself.
-
Next birth, even if human or higher is no real comfort as I had mentioned in my original post.
But that is the reality - especially since Buddha says dukkha cannot be said to be svayamkatam or parakatam (wrought by oneself or wrought by another).
For that would side with either uccheda vada(destruction) or sassada vada (externalism); Or as later pali tradition puts it, the one reborn is âna ca so, no anyoâ - neither the same nor different.
That is why Suttas also say do not think about whether I was before and whether I will be in the future . It neither offers comfort, nor is it useful.
This is also why even householders/lay followers need to work for nibbana and not just be satisfied with doing good/merit- or as AN 5.176 Piti sutta puts, from time to time practise Jhana.
(kÄlena kÄlaáč pavivekaáč pÄ«tiáč upasampajja vihareyyÄmÄti which is defintely a reference to Jhanas) -
Nibbana is desirable because it is a deathless state - amata.
It does not carry a sense of I/Mine which always arise with respect to the body or senses or related thought. But it does have a self-awarness(or itself-awarness) which in later mahayana/vajrayana traditions is called svasamvedana (see Dzogchen philosophy, for example); This concept can be traced back to the mahasamghikas and their simile of a lamp to say that : it is in the very nature of consciousness to not only light other things but also light itself, just like a lamp lights other things but also itself.
The amata-dhatu ie. the deathless-element (see cula-sakuludayi sutta/mahamalukyaputta sutta for the term) realised during jhana is that pure consciouness not clinging to the five senses or thoughts or to the body - but it is still self-aware, though devoid of a sense of I/Mine.
It is a peaceful and desirable state, and to be experienced by oneself. Realising anatta and staying in this state is nibbana.
This amata-dhatu is same as the nibbana-dhatu which is unborn, uncreated etc and it is the universal consciouness/universal alaya (to use Lankavatara concept) from whence the 6 sense based consciousness (eye-consciousness etc) arise like waves in an ocean.
These six-consciouness arise according to causes/conditions and are anatta.
Nibbana entails nirodha/cessation of these six types of consciousness which arise dependently, and realising tathataa/suchness/true nature which is beyond them.
(This explanation is of course using mahayana concepts but we can still draw this out from Pali sutta passages. This is also very close to Peter Harveyâs conclusion in his book Selfless Mind)
Note:
(a) My understanding of the much contested text:
âvinnanam anidassanam anantam sabbato pabhamâ
Correct reading should be sabbato pabham - luminuos all-round - not paham or apaham.
âViññÄáčaáč anidassanaáč,
Anantaáč sabbatopabhaáč;
Ettha Äpo ca pathavÄ«,
Tejo vÄyo na gÄdhati.â
Reason:
Similarly worded passage says - âtamo tattha na vijjatiâ - âdarkness does not exist thereâ.
Yattha Äpo ca paáčhavÄ«,
Tejo vÄyo na gÄdhati,
Na tattha sukkÄ jotanti,
Ädicco nappakÄsati,
Na tattha candimÄ bhÄti,
Tamo tattha na vijjati.
(Ud. 1-10: BÄhiyasuttaáč)
This is of course in addition to the famous phrase âpabhassaram cittamâ.
(b) I am aware that Ven Bhante Sujato and Ven Bhikkhu Brahmali do not subscribe to nibbana as any form of consciousness; I have great respect and admiration for them but I feel without this explanation, nibbana is just not desirable enough (for me!) to justify any effort, let alone letting go of sensual pleasures.
Much Metta,
Ravi
1 Like