Your approach is too rationalistic. Apparent contradictions are the bread and butter of Buddhism.
Edit, more context:
The historical Buddha spoke to a crowd of people who took rebirth as a matter of fact because steeped in Hinduism and in folk belief.
But in fact if you read between the lines, rebirth doesn’t agree with the doctrine of anatta (if everything is empty, what is there to be reborn?) and anicca (if nothing is permanent, how can there be anything that survives death?). Moreover, reflection about the future self (hence what happens after death) is deemed as one of the unwise reflections.
This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’
So as you see, scratch beneath the surface and belief in reincarnation (although very common due to familiarity with Hinduism) is not encouraged. But see the idea of rebirth more as a psychological framework (i.e. hell is being possessed by anger, etc.) and much will start to make sense.
Yes except the wording in the Pali Canon is “upon dissolution of the body” which is pretty clear that rebirth is not purely psychological or within the human lifetime. It is after death. Also doesn’t explain the Buddha discussing his previous lives.
Sorry but I have heard this secular apologetics before. The contradiction between Anatta and Rebirth can not be resolved.
Sure, literalism. Many authoritative interpreters (see Buddhagosa) take reincarnation literally.
But other equally authoritative interpreters take a more nuanced position, which I think is more useful.
I think you’re missing the point of what Buddhism is or does if you get hung up on what may or may not have been the historical Buddha’s words, pronounced 2500 years ago and not written down until after about 500 years. But rejecting anatta (which, contrary to rebirth, is universal in Buddhism) because you want to hold to the idea of rebirth seems as unwise as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As to me, I choose to be a pragmatist rather than a literalist. I see the Dharma as a tool for the here and now, and it is indifferent to me whether we’re going to live again or not, in addition to not making sense.
Call me secular, I don’t care. In the end it’s one’s own choice and path. It really depends what you want.
Your approach is too rationalistic. Apparent contradictions are the bread and butter of Buddhism.
Edit, more context:
The historical Buddha spoke to a crowd of people who took rebirth as a matter of fact because steeped in Hinduism and in folk belief.
But in fact if you read between the lines, rebirth doesn’t agree with the doctrine of anatta (if everything is empty, what is there to be reborn?) and anicca (if nothing is permanent, how can there be anything that survives death?). Moreover, reflection about the future self (hence what happens after death) is deemed as one of the unwise reflections.
So as you see, scratch beneath the surface and belief in reincarnation (although very common due to familiarity with Hinduism) is not encouraged. But see the idea of rebirth more as a psychological framework (i.e. hell is being possessed by anger, etc.) and much will start to make sense.
Yes except the wording in the Pali Canon is “upon dissolution of the body” which is pretty clear that rebirth is not purely psychological or within the human lifetime. It is after death. Also doesn’t explain the Buddha discussing his previous lives.
Sorry but I have heard this secular apologetics before. The contradiction between Anatta and Rebirth can not be resolved.
Sure, literalism. Many authoritative interpreters (see Buddhagosa) take reincarnation literally.
But other equally authoritative interpreters take a more nuanced position, which I think is more useful.
I think you’re missing the point of what Buddhism is or does if you get hung up on what may or may not have been the historical Buddha’s words, pronounced 2500 years ago and not written down until after about 500 years. But rejecting anatta (which, contrary to rebirth, is universal in Buddhism) because you want to hold to the idea of rebirth seems as unwise as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As to me, I choose to be a pragmatist rather than a literalist. I see the Dharma as a tool for the here and now, and it is indifferent to me whether we’re going to live again or not, in addition to not making sense.
Call me secular, I don’t care. In the end it’s one’s own choice and path. It really depends what you want.
Good luck.