the idea of rebirth makes little sense to me.

On the contrary, I see little point in there only being one life for each being. It would be like introducing a whole lot of interesting threads and by the time of introducing one’s self to them, one is told, time is up now, before one has even begun.

It claims cyclical existence without beginning. A circular ladder doesn’t progress, it goes round and round without beginning or ending. — praxis

That is a misinterpretation I think, Not that I believe those views, back to the rebirth thing, which I reject, but the whole idea of enlightenment is that you break free from the ladder/wheel of reincarnation due to extinguishing your karma. I guess they are saying you become the wheel in all things, seeing you are not separate from it. Not an expert but clearly the whole exercise of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of life and death and rebirth.

BTW, you find both views espoused by supporters of both traditions. So perhaps calling Theravadin and Mahayanist is incorrect. — boundless

Well isn't it going to be a case of gradual divergence like most things, which change and morph over time? At some point they would have been one, when closer to the Buddha's original teachings temporally, then over time, and maybe distance, with less communication, they would split away from each other.

Like any other cultural thing like language or whatever.

That does beg the question which is 'right' if any to try and bring it back to some semblance of my OP which seems to have long been abandoned in the debate in the last few pages. Lol. Not complaining (much) about that though. If others are getting something from the current threads then have at it.

I can peck at any points that come up of interest, but it seems it has little to do with what I originally asked, regarding the necessity of supernatural elements, that has fallen by the wayside it seems. So I am not heavily invested in the recent posts as they have become more about discussion of the nuances of different schools of Buddhism on one single teaching.

Think about it for a second, if the wheel has no beginning then it has been spinning for eternity.

I am not saying the wheel is not eternal, it is that you go outside of it.

If for example you were the wheel then it would not be the same as being a spoke in it.

I think we do know the answer to my question, but just can’t put it down on paper, it always misses the mark. — Punshhh

Well, I don't :sweat: indeed, given the variety of opinions Buddhists seem to have hold about the 'ontology' of Nirvana, it is difficult to say that they had the same 'state' in mind.

But perhaps you meant something different.

Well isn't it going to be a case of gradual divergence like most things, which change and morph over time? At some point they would have been one, when closer to the Buddha's original teachings temporally, then over time, and maybe distance, with less communication, they would split away from each other. — unimportant

I agree... of course each school claims to teach the 'true version' of Buddhism and see others as detective or corruptions. Over time, differences have been more and more remarked. As you say, this seems a common phenomenon in religious traditions and not only in religions.

That does beg the question which is 'right' if any to try and bring it back to some semblance of my OP which seems to have long been abandoned in the debate in the last few pages. Lol. — unimportant

I can see that. But to be fair, these 'deviations' can help to understand what might count as 'supernatural' elements in Buddhism and see if the belief in them is relevant or not in order to reach the state of enlightenment as promised by Buddhist traditions.

The fact that there are differences in the doctrinal contents among schools might suggest that 'what one believes' might be important to reach the goal. For instance, before stopping the participation in this thread I argued that:

1) the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth was regarded as an important motivator for practice. Can one achieve the same goal without this motivator? How?
2) the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth perhaps influnced the understanding of what counts as suffering (e.g. 'birth is suffering') and what is the cessation of suffering. Notice that Buddhist believed that insight in the nature of suffering and its cause was a condition for enlightenment. So, how can we be certain to achieve the same goal if our understanding of suffering differ?
3) the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth coheres pretty well with anatman. Can one really achieve an insight in 'not self' if one holds the view of 'one life only as this or that person'?

Note that all these questions make sense even if the traditional Buddhist doctrine of rebirth is false. I was wondering about what role might the belief in it might have in practicing and achieving the goal. They are IMO legitimate questions one can ask if one claims that belief in rebirth (or any other 'supernatural' doctrine) isn't needed to achieve the goal.

But perhaps you meant something different.

I was probably continuing the thought in my head following my reply to Wayfarer. Namely that we don’t know whom experiences nirvana, but in a sense, we do, as it is within us. But we don’t know that, or what we know.
It follows on perhaps from the idea that we are already in nirvana if we could but see it. We are blind to it.

Ok, thanks. I think I can agree with that.
In many religions/philosophies there is the idea that we have an innermost desire/implicit knowledge of the 'highest good'.

It claims cyclical existence without beginning. A circular ladder doesn’t progress, it goes round and round without beginning or ending. — praxis

Now that's a creative interpretation I haven't heard before ...

In terms of making progress on the path, I'm referring to the stages to nibbana, namely, stream-entry, once-returner, non-returner, and arahant.

If rebirth is true then there are no ‘causeless’ births, and given that there is no beginning to the wheel of life and death, that means we have always existed. We have existed for eternity.

If rebirth is true then there are no ‘causeless’ births, and given that there is no beginning to the wheel of life and death, that means we have always existed. We have existed for eternity. — praxis

I mean, if we're going to delve into the supernatural and metaphysical (the otherwise traditionally non-logical), it's theoretically possible it wasn't that way at first but later became that way through some way or means. If I'm not mistaken that's essentially a major tenet of Christianity.

I mean, if we're going to delve into the supernatural and metaphysical (the otherwise traditionally non-logical), it's theoretically possible it wasn't that way at first but later became that way through some way or means. If I'm not mistaken that's essentially a major tenet of Christianity. — Outlander

Yes but here we are specifically discussing Buddhism and what they believe, not general thought experiments of the other possible options. As such I recall reading the Buddha explicitly believed the universe to be eternal. I don't have the breadth of knowledge of the scriptures to be able to pull references though some other posters so maybe they can step in to do that.

The idea of ending suffering for all beings seems to be in both traditions and also seems impossible to me. Buddhist cosmology posits a beginning-less creation―if the (illusory?) world has existed forever — Janus

Not "forever", but cyclically. In Buddhist cosmology, a universe comes into existence, exists, and then disappers. And then another one appears, exists, disappears, and so on.

, and suffering is still universal then how could progress in that goal ever be imagined to be plausible?

By understanding paticcasamuppada, dependent co-arising.

Personally I like to think of death as being liberation for all―either in eternity or oblivion―the idea of rebirth makes little sense to me. It seems to be, if anything, to be motivated by attachment to the self. — Janus

Hence the characteristic distinction between reincarnation (as in Hinduism, where an eternal soul transmigrates between different bodies), and rebirth (where a conglomerate, a stream of aggregates goes on and on (externally appearing as different lifeforms, such as humans, cows, dogs, ghosts)).

Indeed. Can it be demonstrated that a single person has achieved this end? How would we even do that? How do we even know it is a plausible possibility? — Tom Storm

In Dhammic religions, the context of spiritual efforts is different than what we are used to in the West (under the influence of Christianity).

Namely, in Dhammic religions, they basically don't care whether anyone believes them or not.
This isn't like in Christianity where people are expected to believe things and where religious/spiritual teachings are shoved down people's throats. In Dhammic religions, if you don't believe something they claim, they consider that your problem (and that you just have "too much dust in your eyes"). It's not something they feel responsible for fixing.

I agree. I think the idea of the enlightened one is just a case of the usual human myth-making. — Janus

I don't think so.
Enlightenment the Buddhist way is not something many people would or even could want. I find it odd that the idea has such prominence in culture at large, when it's such a highly specific niche interest.

In any case no one but the actual enlightened would know,

Indeed, the phrase colloquially used is "It takes an arahant to know an arahant". Other than that, there are in traditional teachings some pointers as to how even non-arahants might recognize one.

and is it even credible that any human being could not be mistaken in thinking they were enlightened?

It happens all the time in Buddhist venues. It's actually not a problem there.

In many religions/philosophies there is the idea that we have an innermost desire/implicit knowledge of the 'highest good'.

Yes, or that there is an inner most part of* us which is in some way present in nirvana. Perhaps like a seed.

Going back to what I was saying about the idea that we are already in nirvana, but are blind to it. Is there an idea like this in Buddhism? as it’s an important idea for me. I can’t really remember where it came from.

* I’m thinking of the idea of a part of our being, which is not physical, or mental, but an aspect of a living being.

If rebirth is true then there are no ‘causeless’ births, and given that there is no beginning to the wheel of life and death, that means we have always existed. We have existed for eternity. — praxis

You're talking about reincarnation, not rebirth.

Going back to what I was saying about the idea that we are already in nirvana, but are blind to it. Is there an idea like this in Buddhism? as it’s an important idea for me. I can’t really remember where it came from. — Punshhh

You seem to be referring to the idea of "Buddha nature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

You’re claiming that according to Buddhist doctrine there are births that are not rebirths? That some births are not part of the cycle of life and death?

Yes, that’s it. It can also be approached from the opposite direction, as I see it, i.e. nirvana would inevitably pervade all of existence. Thus would pervade all incarnate beings and worlds. I would take it further that all is nirvana and that it is a specific impediment that veils it from us.

Yes, that’s it. It can also be approached from the opposite direction, as I see it, i.e. nirvana would inevitably pervade all of existence. Thus would pervade all incarnate beings and worlds. I would take it further that all is nirvana and that it is a specific impediment that veils it from us. — Punshhh

This ventures into some concepts more native to some schools of Hinduism, with the veil being the "veil of Maya".

The problem with assuming defaults, innate essences (such as "all beings have Buddha nature") is that they bog one down.

If you have Buddha nature, then why are you here, suffering, instead of being happy and enlightened?
If you suffer now, despite having/being Buddha nature, and later become enlightened, then where's the guarantee that you won't lose your enligtenment and suffer again?
If you are now covered by the veil of Maya, how can you possibly trust your choice of spiritual guidance?

Thus assuming some kind of innate natrure, an essence, implies, among other things, that you are ultimately helpless against that veil of Maya, helpless against suffering.

It's how the outlook of innate nature is demoralizing, unless, of course, one has a grand enough ego to compensate for it.

You’re claiming that according to Buddhist doctrine there are births that are not rebirths? — praxis

That would be "spontaneously arisen beings", yes.

That some births are not part of the cycle of life and death?

Some births are last births, yes, and as such, are not part of the cycle of life and death anymore.

On the contrary, I see little point in there only being one life for each being. It would be like introducing a whole lot of interesting threads and by the time of introducing one’s self to them, one is told, time is up now, before one has even begun. — Punshhh

I actually find both rebirth and reincarnation entirely plausible.

I also find the Hindu explanation plausible according to which Vishnu/Krishna incarnates himself as a buddha/the Buddha.
Having studied a bit of both Buddhism and Hindusim, I find there is a peculiar fit between the two.

Having studied a bit of both Buddhism and Hindusim, I find there is a peculiar fit between the two. — baker

Why would it be peculiar when they both were born in the same place and the Buddha grew up in the Hindu tradition?

This isn't like in Christianity where people are expected to believe things and where religious/spiritual teachings are shoved down people's throats. In Dhammic religions, if you don't believe something they claim, they consider that your problem (and that you just have "too much dust in your eyes"). It's not something they feel responsible for fixing. — baker

Sure; that’s a much better way to deal with skepticism and/or the real world, for that matter. You could almost be describing Scientology. But the question remains even if they ignore it.

You’re claiming that according to Buddhist doctrine there are births that are not rebirths?
— praxis
That would be "spontaneously arisen beings", yes. — baker

Opapātika means only not born through parents or biological reproduction. It is still rebirth and causally conditioned.

I'm thinking that this, if nothing else, is the reason rebirth is not claimed to be a motivator for practice. We've have literally been practicing forever without end.

I'm thinking that this, if nothing else, is the reason rebirth is not claimed to be a motivator for practice. — praxis

Not claimed by whom? Names?

People are motivated by different things. Some are motivated by the notion of rebirth, some are not.

We've have literally been practicing forever without end.

Who is "we"?

But the question remains even if they ignore it. — Tom Storm

A person has questions, or doesn't have them. Questions don't somehow exist and matter on their own.
It's on the person to pursue a question, or not; and why they choose to do so, or not.

s there an idea like this in Buddhism? as it’s an important idea for me. — Punshhh

As @baker remarked, the idea is quite explicit in some strands of Mahayana with the concept of 'Buddha nature'. However, it can be said that it is implied by the fact that the Buddhist practice is seen as a way to purify the mind, i.e. removing all the 'impurities'. So, rather than a transformation into something 'alien', the Buddhist path actually seems to have been presented as a way to bring the mind-stream to its 'purity'.
This idea is IMO recurrent in ancient religious and philosophical traditions. You can find analogous idea in Christianity, for instance, when sins are depicted as an impurity or an illness that 'stain' the purity (yes, there is original sin but as you probably know the interpretation of that concept wasn't the same among all Christian traditions... and, anyway, there is the idea that all God's creations are originally good and, therefore, evil is a corruption that came about later).

I mean, if we're going to delve into the supernatural and metaphysical (the otherwise traditionally non-logical), it's theoretically possible it wasn't that way at first but later became that way through some way or means. If I'm not mistaken that's essentially a major tenet of Christianity. — Outlander

I believe that most Buddhist traditions accept the idea of a beginningless samsara. I recall to have read that some Tibetan schools allowed the belief of a beginning of samsara but I can't recall where I read it.

Interestingly, I believe that some scholars have noted that the Pali texts actually do not explicitly say that samsara is beginningless. Consider this excerpt of an already quoted sutta:

“Mendicants, this transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving. What do you think? Which is more: the flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating for such a very long time—weeping and wailing from being coupled with the unloved and separated from the loved—or the water in the four oceans?” — SN 15.3, bhikkhu Sujato translation

Also, speculating about the question of the world being eternal or not was discouraged:

Thus have I heard: at one time the Lord was staying near Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. Then a reasoning of mind arose to the venerable Māluṅkyāputta as he was meditating in solitary seclusion, thus: “Those (speculative) views that are not explained, set aside and ignored by the Lord: the world is eternal, the world is not eternal, the world is an ending thing, the world is not an ending thing; the life-principle is the same as the body, the life-principle is one thing, the body another; the ITathāgata is after dying, the Tathāgata is not after dying, the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying; the Lord does not explain these to me. That the Lord does not explain these to me does not please me, does not satisfy me, so I, having approached the Lord, will question him on the matter. — MN 63, I.B. Horner translation

I don't know how the traditionalists explain this.

Opapātika means only not born through parents or biological reproduction. It is still rebirth and causally conditioned. — praxis

Yes, it is still a form of rebirth and, as you say, it is still causally conditioned. Rebirth is a process that follows precise 'rules'.

I'm thinking that this, if nothing else, is the reason rebirth is not claimed to be a motivator for practice. We've have literally been practicing forever without end. — praxis

Even if samsara is beginningless, it doesn't follow that you have practised since beginningless times and you have already practised with diligence infinite times and you somehow always failed.
Indeed, in Buddhist traditions you find a lot of emphasis on how rare a human birth is and how rare is a human birth in which you are exposed to the teaching of the Dhamma and can practice it. There are many, many more activities you can do in your 'journey'. You can't even exclude the chance that you never encountered the Dhamma previously.

On the other hand, if you believe in the Buddhist traditional account of rebirth, you can get a lot of motivation by contemplating the vastness of the sufferings of the 'lower realms' (purgatories (naraka), hungry shades and animal) as well as the fact that no 'realm' is without suffering and death. And, again, if you believed in the traditional account you also would believe that you shed more tears than the waters of the ocean for the losses of your loved ones like it is written in the sutta I quoted above. As the quoted sutta says, all of this is 'enough' to become disillusioned and actively try to 'go out'.

In Dhammic religions, the context of spiritual efforts is different than what we are used to in the West (under the influence of Christianity).

Namely, in Dhammic religions, they basically don't care whether anyone believes them or not.
This isn't like in Christianity where people are expected to believe things and where religious/spiritual teachings are shoved down people's throats. In Dhammic religions, if you don't believe something they claim, they consider that your problem (and that you just have "too much dust in your eyes"). It's not something they feel responsible for fixing. — baker

Yes, I’m aware that they don’t care. But I don’t care that they don’t care. On this Western forum where we encourage quesions, I am simply asking one. I am not a Buddhist. I am not even convinced that a Westerner who attempts to escape Judeo‑Christianity to find refuge in Buddhism can achieve authenticity there. But that’s a personal bias I am happy to admit to.

Even if samsara is beginningless… — boundless

You’re claiming that teaching may be false?