I'll open it up and see if I can follow it with no background. I will turn 94 in April.

Finally, back here. And his discussion presumes I know something about Buddhism. I don't so I am not following him as I listen. I need a basic education.

Matt:List out your questions here and I can expound. I found it easy to follow but then I've been doing this for a while.

I'll find some time tomorrow. Thank you. Perhaps dhw has a better background, so I am interested in his response and look forward to it.

Well, I've listened to the first half so far, and thank goodness for dhw's entry. I gather He doesn't like secular materialism poking its head into revered teachings. As for reincarnation, it seems to me reincarnating oneself in this life to be at peace with oneself is very reasonable. Trying to propose one becoming someone else but yet the same in continuity requires one's consciousness/self to enter a new brain. This is directly equivalent the concept of NDE's and a form of dualism with a material brain hosting an immaterial consciousness. If I am now the continued result of someone else, who was that? Me in an earlier form? I'm not making fun in any way. I find the whole basis of that tenet as unreasonable. What I hope for is your clear responses. Ill comment further with time for further listening.

I don't have a full explanation for you yet but in my own research I found this: https://suttacentral.net/sn12.61/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=as...

That doesn't quite get to the reincarnation question just yet BUT the observation that when you study your consciousness far enough you realize that the true self is actually "empty" (the mind naturally stills itself after meditation and it's that state of the mystics where the Buddha's path really begins.)

So more or less, what we take as consciousness relies on causes and conditions and should be thought of as no different than the death of our own bodies.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

xeno: […] The common thread between Buddhist asceticism and well, all asceticism really is a rejection of the never-ending hamster wheel of wants and desires. Rejection isn't the right word though, because Buddhism's goal is to ideally have us be mentally present and not in the semi-conscious state that we tend to live in for most of our lives. The idea isn't to *reject* pleasures, but not to attach to them. Like, eat one chocolate, but not the entire box in a single sitting.

I don’t know why eating one chocolate constitutes full consciousness and hogging the whole box = semi-consciousness, or why the desire for one chocolate isn’t a desire, or why having wants and desires = semi-consciousness. You’re proposing that we should indulge our wants and desires in moderation, but that’s not what I understand by Ajahn Brahmali’s Buddhism, and in any case I don’t think it would cause much disagreement in non-Buddhist or secular Buddhist circles!

Next comes the discussion of “eternalists” versus “materialists”:

xeno: As suggested in the podcast, the Buddha proposed a "middle path" which says "It's not either/or, its both." I wish he went into more detail here.

I’m afraid this is a major problem, and Brahmali simply glosses it over. He goes on and on about rebirth being a (the?) central point. David and I are in total agreement on this. What/who are we when we are reborn – and what is reborn if there is no immaterial “soul”?

xeno: the key Buddhist observation […] is that when you observe your own thoughts, eventually you figure out that you're not in control of the majority of what's going on in that mind of yours. […] We don't even truly own our bodies... they are subject to aging and decay. Who you are as a person changes over time, so what we typically take of as a "self" is an illusion. […] So the first big thing we do as Buddhists, is to try and get in tune with our minds so that way we are always observing the process.

I don’t recall this being discussed in the podcast (maybe I nodded off?), but it’s nothing more than the question of whether or not we have free will. Did Gotama really teach you to remember that you act like a zombie though you think you’re an autonomous being? I don’t think my “self” is an illusion. I may not be in control of what makes me “me”, and I have changed and am still changing, but I’m fully aware of my personal characteristics, and I challenge the right of anyone to tell me these are “illusory”. If secular Buddhists dislike all this vagueness, I’m on their side, and Brahmali’s failure to address these problems makes me hostile to his calling their doubts “baloney”!

xeno: And I mean, if you're worried about what we give up, my percepts are 1) Don't kill 2.) Don't steal 3.) If I'm in a committed relationship don't break the rules 4.) Don't use intoxicants that lead to carelessness 5.) Don't speak unskillfully. (Other religions: 'don't lie' but Buddhists understand that there are moral or ethical times where lying is appropriate.) Core to the practice is Mudita (Other's joys), Metta (Loving kindness for all beings), and of course lots of meditation involving the deconstruction of our perceptions.

I think all of us would approve of your precepts and “core”, but I have no idea if these represent the teachings of the Buddha, especially since one of Brahmali’s key issues is monasticism, which “secular” Buddhists seem to have turned their backs on. How do you show your loving kindness and concern for other people’s joys if you shut yourself up in a monastery? And what happens to the human race if sexual desires have to be overcome? And once we have deconstructed our perceptions etc., what are we supposed to do with that knowledge? Be reborn as whatever, keep suffering and deluding ourselves, until eventually one of us realizes it just ain’t worth living life on Earth, so we’re better off lying permanently under it! As I suggested before, Nirvana = permanent death!

The rest of your post asks virtually the same questions as my own, and what I have written is just my response to the statements above. I sense that you reject Ajahn Brahmali’s dismissal of “secular” Buddhism as baloney. He seems to have dodged all the issues that you have difficulty with yourself! I’ll skip to your final remark:

xeno: Whether or not Rebirth is a relevant concept for me to consider in THIS life, I don't know, but I DO know that if people like myself took a much longer view of their lives, we might actually live in a kinder, gentler place.

I think that message would apply to most religions and to humanism as well, but I would put it slightly differently. If people like and unlike myself would take a less egotistical view of themselves and would treat others in the way they themselves would wish to be treated, we might all live in a kinder, gentler place.

Thank you again for giving us a new topic to discuss. I’ll be interested to hear what your monk has to say in response to your own questions, though I wonder if he is a “secular” Buddhist himself!

Buddhism

dhw: I have struggled through this podcast with increasing frustration.
[snipped for brevity] With my perhaps all too sceptical mind, I have always considered this to be the perfect state of death, so why bother with the long and apparently always painful sequence of lives spent suffering? > >

Matt: There's a few misconceptions in much of the first part, and my heart goes out to anyone experiencing some of the same consternation. Let me address the misconception part first however. The common thread between Buddhist asceticism and well, all asceticism really is a rejection of the never-ending hamster wheel of wants and desires. Rejection isn't the right word though, because Buddhism's goal is to ideally have us be mentally present and not in the semi-conscious state that we tend to live in for most of our lives. The idea isn't to *reject* pleasures, but not to attach to them. Like, eat one chocolate, but not the entire box in a single sitting.

In my understanding (which comes from Brahmali's own tradition) the four noble truths are an accurate diagnosis of the human condition: we impulsively seek pleasure and avoid pain, and at the root of pleasure seeking and pain avoidance is the ego. So it's important (and also problematic as we'll discuss later) that Buddhism rejects the idea of a permanent immutable soul. At the time of the Buddha you actually had Eternalists and Materialists, schools which should be quite familiar to us here in the west as we're dealing with our own long history between those two poles. As suggested in the podcast, the Buddha proposed a "middle path" which says "It's not either/or, its both." I wish he went into more detail here.

To summarize a bit tersely, the key Buddhist observation (and this is one I have made on my own) is that when you observe your own thoughts, eventually you figure out that you're not in control of the majority of what's going on in that mind of yours. So for the Buddha, it became clear that what we typically refer to as a "self" or in the west as we would call it, "a soul" is actually a confluence of our "observational function" (my term) as well as conditioning received by living life... family, friends, and society. We don't even truly own our bodies... they are subject to aging and decay. Who you are as a person changes over time, so what we typically take of as a "self" is an illusion. We are processes, not things. But we are processes who often incorrectly think about ourselves as things. So the first big thing we do as Buddhists, is to try and get in tune with our minds so that way we are always observing the process. And I mean, if you're worried about what we give up, my percepts are 1) Don't kill 2.) Don't steal 3.) If I'm in a committed relationship don't break the rules 4.) Don't use intoxicants that lead to carelessness 5.) Don't speak unskillfully. (Other religions: 'don't lie' but Buddhists understand that there are moral or ethical times where lying is appropriate.) Core to the practice is Mudita (Other's joys), Metta (Loving kindness for all beings), and of course lots of meditation involving the deconstruction of our perceptions. Buddhist psychology has been making alot of inroads in western medicine, I'll leave it at that.

I think this answer would make my teacher happy and hopefully answers most of your irritation with Brahmali especially about the monastic parts of life. I have arguments with him on that but far afield from this conversation I think. (Buddhist inside football)

So... where I have considered myself a "secular Buddhist" is precisely because there's an aspect of Buddhism that talks about things such as a "Mind-made body," where supposedly if you meditate deep enough you can create a doppelganger of yourself and send it out on missions in the world. I would like to have seen Brahmali respond to THAT one. However the rebirth question is one that up until now I've felt I can do just fine without--I'm still very much the "I'll believe it when I see it" kind of guy and a critical aspect that remains to be explained... actually I'll call my monk tomorrow and ask him--I'm perfectly fine with all my ideas of self being mostly illusory. We should all believe we're part of a bigger picture. But how can we reject the idea of some sort of a permanent "soul" when there's something that somehow enters the mind-universe upon death, punishes itself, and then seeks out a new body... how exactly does that work? Isn't the mind that sheds this body still a discrete being? It certainly sounds like a self.

After having listened to the podcast a couple times, where Brahmali has heartburn is in the (mostly western) authors that are for example excluding the idea of rebirth wholesale and then calling it Buddhism. The more materialist leanings of the secularists decide not to even confront the issue, which is intellectually dishonest, IMHO.

He's not wrong. That's NOT what the Buddha taught. Whether or not Rebirth is a relevant concept for me to consider in THIS life, I don't know, but I DO know that if people like myself took a much longer view of their lives, we might actually live in a kinder, gentler place.

Seeing this from your personal level make it more understandable. I have question. Does your teacher act as a psychologist in a sense?

Matt: I think what you have with that single teaching I shared earlier has a similar danger to other religious texts--out of context it's easy to railroad it into any form you want. And we humans tend to be negative. Maybe it would be good in this case to get an idea for a practice I do daily:

"This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
Not proud or demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born —
May all beings be at ease!

Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world."

Just to level set, this is centered on my personal views here, I'm not meaning to project to anyone else here. This is chanted followed by a meditation where we start with ourselves radiating a warm feeling of loving kindness, and then expand that out in greater circles to beam that feeling out in all directions.

Why engage daily in a practice designed to have us create the feeling of loving kindness--the same sort of love and compassion that a mother has for her child--and deliberately engage with everyone in the world with this feeling of love and compassion sitting in the background? One of the reasons I chose to throw my lot in with the Buddhists, is because after about a year of engaging with this practice daily, my wife even said she noticed major changes. Notably with my mother--that's complicated but the short version is that there was abuse involved and I was 100% fine with writing her out of my life. But it hit me in other places too.

An abusive parent is a terrible load to bear. Has Buddhism returned you to her? I realize this is very personal.

As a third leg here, the Stoics would say that bad emotions are caused by not getting what you want and not accepting the fact that you can't get everything that you want: Very probably, you have unrealistic goals.

Instead of trying to win a tennis match--something you simply DO NOT have full control over, modify your goal to play your best. That way, your expectations more closely match reality.

Buddhism for me is THAT ethic on steroids.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

So the teaching you're taking issue with earlier *must* be taken alongside this (and other) daily practice(s). In my view, there is absolutely no way that the teaching you worried about can lead to the sort of nihilism that you're reading into it when several of the bedrock teachings stem from this metta sutta. Whatever we incline our minds towards--is where our minds go. We can't *control* our mind, but we can dig ruts into the road to help guide us where we want to go. I read that teaching in this way: an untrained person will always be at the whims of wherever their mind is blowing. Like a monkey travelling from vine to vine, their mind flies and they damage themselves and others. Anger is the best study for this: it takes alot of training and effort to handle anger in ways that won't cause us to lash out at other people. Because we wish to inflect ourselves on a path towards a kinder place, having that thought in the back of our minds we will more skillfully keep anger at bay, and transform its energies into constructive rather than destructive change. I think it's important to refer back to the ancient Greeks and Romans who believed emotions were thrown upon us by the Gods themselves. We realize that emotions are internal to us now, but we shouldn't throw away their insight that emotions don't typically come on command: That's why their explanations moved to external causes: Why do I experience Anger even when I don't want to be angry? The Stoics--a group I have a feeling you'll view as dour as well--developed many techniques to handle anger.

Buddhism altered how I view happiness: Happiness is contentment. And let me add to that: What if we could learn to be content with less? Consumerism is the obvious choice here to make a point. No matter how many things I buy, happiness isn't in accumulation despite what our marketing agents want us to believe. This I didn't need to be taught, but the Buddha's teaching on craving for sense desires perfectly aligns with a disenchantment I learned ages ago towards fashion trends. To this day I have a wardrobe that doesn't extend beyond about 20 shirts and maybe half that of pants and I replace things only when they wear out. I have two pairs of shoes and one pair of hiking boots. One pair of sandals. I have a tendency to buy too many books and have plenty that I will probably never read before I die. (Here I've done better--I've taken to using the library and am trying to pare down that collection to something much more manageable. I've bought two in the last year.)

Books and music provide temporary bursts of joy but the teachings help me to realize that joy like all things has a beginning, middle, and end. Okay, this is all stuff I've talked about with other Buddhists and my monk friend, and nobody once has said that any of this is contrary to the path. Food and many of the things of daily life, provide small sparks of joy, but none of that provides a lasting contentment. Due to these practices, what I would describe as large swaths of just neutral feeling that was punctuated by small sparks of joy through food, music, conversation etc. has been replaced with a sort of warm glow of contentment--I've learned how to be happy when not doing anything in particular. I've even used the meditation techniques to stop an 8yr long 750ml+/day drinking habit. Addiction is in my view, just the same pattern of pleasure seeking we all share--only turned towards substances that have harmful effects. At any rate, me building a book collection I'll never read is little different than a drinking habit. They're both attempting to satisfy cravings, and both lead to bad consequences--buying books I'll never read when I know full well I already have books I haven't read is more mundane but illustrative: I'm out of control. (My mom is a hoarder, and I try to keep that in mind.)

Now your monastics will practice to become disenchanted with everything but that feeling of pervasive contentment. That's really the only difference between the monks and us "normies." None of this quite gets at the point that started this thread, but you seemed to have such a negative and dour view on Buddhism that I felt it necessary to give you a little flavor as to what it means for me. To answer your question, yeah these thoughts pop in "my" head, but I don't understand myself to be anything more than the confluence of consciousness and conditioning that was born 40odd years ago, and if things go the way I figure they will, will eventually support daisies. I won't get to take any of those thoughts with me. So they're not *me*, in an ultimate sense. The hardcore Buddhists--they clearly think I'll carry on somehow, and I'm still researching and waiting on my monk to call me back to try and give us both better answers.

It seems you are using this as catharsis and Mom, the hoarder, is always sitting there in the background with her severe psychological illness.

Matt: One last bit, as the characterization of Buddhism as a sort of misanthropic death cult is stronger than I realized.

There's a very famous Sutta, the "Kisa Gotami" Sutta where a woman comes to the Buddha with the body of her only son. She was so distraught that the villagers believed her to be fully mad.

She lays the body of her young son at the Buddha's feet and asks the Buddha to bring him back to life. The Buddha tells her, "We can do this, but only if you find a white mustard seed from a home that has never lost someone.

She then goes through the entire village on her hunt. By the time she has investigated the last house in the village, she realizes that death touches everyone.

She comes back to the Buddha, still saddened, and when the Buddha asks her how her search went, she kneels and weeps: "I understand now that death comeas for everyone." The Buddha gives her some small teaching, and then hugs her, both weeping.

I had no idea that the idea of Buddhism being about an uncaring nihilism was so pervasive. If the Buddha could weep at the loss of a mother's only child, and he was the most accomplished teacher of his age, then how can Buddhism be a death cult that suggests that the only escape for suffering is death?

I'm still waiting for my monk friend to call me back, but I believe I have a tentative answer to the reincarnation question. I will wait until the dust settles on these small points however. My apologies for taking up this much of your time!

I'm thrilled you have confided in us, allowing us such trust. Please continue with your teaching and comments about your self struggles.

Ajahn Brahm, (Brahmali's teacher) goes directly into what he calls "proof" of reincarnation:

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-qdqh8-1337429

Matt: Nothing controversial here--he's not calling anything baloney, but his background makes this interesting. Before he became a monk he completed a degree in Theoretical Physics. So he's rather well-equipped to handle western science.

I have the same uncomfortable feeling I had reading Sabom's book. Many of these stories are personal which make them harder to criticize. However, you guys are about the only people that I'd feel fine talking about these kinds of stories as literally everyone else I know would think I'm looney for even listening to them!

DAVID: I didn't feel strange with Sabom. I found it fascinating.

Well, you weren't a materialist. (Or at least you weren't as of the time where you suggested I read his book!)

I'm far from a materialist.

Where Buddhism offers some answers down this path, supposedly there are meditations we can do that allow us to have these experiences (even veridical OBE) that at least on paper, offer a 2500yr old answer to these questions. I'm almost done with Brahm's podcast but his argument is fairly squishy. However he's right to point out that rebirth was a Greek answer and I know from my own research that rebirth was even a belief within early Christianity as well as Kabbalah.

Actually I plan on writing a book titled "Where did our Mind go?" which is an exploration attempting to locate precisely when "The West" stopped treating the mind as one of the senses I mean short answer is probably the Scottish Enlightenment and David Hume, but it was taken for granted by the Greeks.

That is a great point. The mind is one of our senses.

Again I am editing for the sake of clarity.

dhw: If our current identity is transient, and our former identities were transient, what exactly is the point of having had former identities? The one I am lumbered with now is the one that has to get rid of its “cravings”, and if in my next life I can’t even remember the mess I made of my previous life, I might just as well not have led it. But see later for the astonishing and seemingly pointless revelation I shall one day be granted. Meanwhile, a personal question: have you yourself ever been aware of any of your past lives?

Matt: > These are great questions. I'll start with where I'm at: I'm trying to understand these bits of Eastern philosophy. I would still categorize myself as a materialist who acknowledges that there are gaps. I'm no closer to believing in Rebirth at the moment than I am in Christ's resurrection. I certainly think that if I'm contrasting the Buddhist approach against other explanations, it has fewer gaps, but it still has a problem relating to epistemology. As a western materialist trying to tackle this issue, my Buddhist friends haven't provided much evidence outside of hearsay. Ajahn Brahm's argument rests on three assertions, disappointing since he used to be a physicist. They are:

1.) There's lots of evidence for rebirth, people just don't like it.
2.) Anecdote. (He shares a story that leaves me dubious but its so personal to the particular family involved that trying to doubt it makes me look and feel like a monster.
3.) Wouldn't it be a beautiful idea if it were true.

I think it's important to note that even in the podcast I shared, towards the end even Brahmali shifts into an "if it were true" mode of speaking, which suggests that at least in Brahmali's case, he might not fully believe in it himself. (FWIW The Dali Llama has said there's good reasons to doubt it, and he's supposed to be the 14th reincarnation of a Buddhist teacher!) If I could talk to Brahm, I'd ask if the standard of evidence he's using to accept rebirth would fly in a physics department!

So with that bit of background, my answer to your first question is that the Buddha is dealing with his own empirical observations based upon the collected evidence of Indian society. "What's the point" of all those lives was the central question for the ancient Hindus, and much of their religion was trying to deal with that question. The radical departure for the Buddha is that "What's the point" is a flawed question, because it is unknowable. According to the explorations relevant to that time period, his teaching about rebirth here is only in explaining that the cycle of rebirth *was not* eternal, and neither were the Gods as they were stuck in the same web as the rest of us. It is notable in Buddhist teachings that Gods came to the Buddha for answers, never the other way around.

This leads me to your more personal question: Nope. Nothing in my experience that would lead me to believe in rebirth. And if I ever break into those higher meditations, I'd still suffer the doubt that I made it up somehow, like how my imagination does all sorts of fun things.

It’s not a mind or a soul, it’s immaterial, and in most cases it does NOT store memories of past lives. You might as well call it a something. Now we have hell or heavenly realms, which I can only assume means that you have entered your new life with different degrees of misery which you can’t remember, so you haven’t a clue why you’re suffering, except when you know the causes that have occurred in this life. I’ll change the pronoun: I am now a miserable selfish bastard. What makes me want to be a happy, philanthropic angel? Here is the rather strange answer:

So the way I'm understanding it, it does indeed store memories of past lives. It just isn't a fully functioning *mind*.

I'm following along.

A major correction. From the introduction of the Majjhima Nikaya:

"According to the Buddha's teaching, all beings except Arahants are subject to "renewal of being in the future" that is, to rebirth. Rebirth in the Buddhist conception, is not the transmigration of a self or soul but the continuation of a process, a flux of becoming in which successive lives are linked together by causal transmission of influence rather than by substantial identity."

I'll return to this later tonight or tomorrow.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Xeno: The desire to be reborn is enough to cause the store consciousness to enter a new being. The store consciousness holds only the memories of past lives. This allows the Buddha to explain how those who reach very high meditative states can "recall past lives."

What desires to be reborn if the body is dead, and “I” haven’t got a mind or a soul. What has this immaterial store of past memories which I shan’t be able to remember got to do with anything? Is it my previous life’s dying wish to be reborn? What will happen to me if I don’t believe in rebirth and therefore don’t desire to be reborn? (Answer coming up in a moment.) What is the point of recalling past lives once I’ve purified myself of all the cravings I can’t remember I had in my previous lives? Just to tell myself what a fine fellow I’ve become? Ugh, that doesn’t sound like the enlightened selfless fellow I’m supposed to be now. And finally, now that I’ve achieved Enlightenment, but I am only transient and there is no such thing as eternal life, what possible future can I have other than eternal death – the same as the me who never asked to be reborn in the first place?

So it's the combination of intent and action (remember, "karma" literally translates as "action") that determines your next life. Your "desire" for future lives is created by your actions right now. I read something just last night that might help, I'll follow up with a quote later. I would characterize it this way. Anne Rice wrote a series of Vampire novels where she explores the theme of what it would really be like to be an ancient being. More or less, the vampires who reach the age of the methuselahs become so utterly bored of life that death becomes something desirable. You can only go to so many fancy soirees and watch so many loved ones die before everything in the world becomes devoid of life, and meaning itself becomes meaningless.

While the Buddha expressly argues against this kind of nihilism, it is similar to how I imagine him talking about the dispassion that gets created after having accrued many many lifetimes. This is in fact why the Buddha left the "Brahmavihara" practices--loving kindness, appreciative joy, etc. After all the core problem that Buddhism sets out to solve is "Why is there suffering?" And the sort of asceticism that leads you to hate existence is also NOT what he was aiming for. (Remember, 'middle path.') Your "final death" (parinibbana) will come whether you want it to or not--the Buddha on this particular path just teaches what you need to do in order to bring it about. Students who accomplish "Stream Entry" will reach Nibbana within 7 lifetimes.

As for the rest, you could only ask the question "I can’t remember I had in my previous lives? Just to tell myself what a fine fellow I’ve become?" until you've done the work of purifying your mind to the point where you could easily recall your past lives. This was something that other Hindu teachers taught, they just had different doctrines surrounding the eternal nature of that reality. But the sort of selfless nature you would have to have in order to get there means you wouldn't be asking that sort of question to begin with. (Not by any means a slight, its just very clear what sort of person you have to be to get here--by this point your doubts would supposedly vanish.)

I hope these questions won’t make you angry, and they are not meant to deter you from the highly beneficial path you are on. It’s perfectly clear that there are certain aspects of Buddhism that would do all of us good to embrace, as is also the case with other religions (though I’m not sure that Buddhism should be classified as a religion). I just kick against certain forms of dogma which for me distract from the essence of the “Golden Rule”. And I strongly suspect that you do too. I don’t think you started this fascinating discussion with a view to proselytising. But I have very limited knowledge of the subject (indeed, of most subjects), and perhaps you or your teacher will enlighten me. Meanwhile, I’d like to join David in thanking you for bringing us into your personal life and also opening new doors for us. This in itself is a heartwarming experience.

Not at all angry. You have many of the same questions I do, because we're both westerners who grew up under a much different paradigm. I'm not on any path towards Nibbana in this life, rest assured of that. Good food, family, and solid friends keep me plenty warm and occupied! Present company especially!

"Secular Buddhism" seems for me to be a more likely path I'd settle in. When religion starts getting too "religiony" or in dealing with things I can't epistemologically agree with, I'm just going to leave those parts be.

That said, the Buddha himself said "Use the teachings that work and discard those that don't." Well, while I'm not seeing the utility of Rebirth, and I'm fine at this point in my life to leave it there. That said, it never hurts to be challenged. Rebirth used to even be in Christianity, so its not like it's a totally alien idea in the West.

My wife is a born-again Christian. But I don't think that is what you refer to, based on its definition.

PART ONE

dhw: If our current identity is transient, and our former identities were transient, what exactly is the point of having had former identities? The one I am lumbered with now is the one that has to get rid of its “cravings”, and if in my next life I can’t even remember the mess I made of my previous life, I might just as well not have led it.

It’s quite difficult now to develop the discussion, because it’s clear that you and I have exactly the same doubts! (You wrote: I'm no closer to believing in Rebirth at the moment than I am in Christ's resurrection.) I can only pick on certain points, so forgive me if I again edit the entries accordingly.

You quote the Buddha’s answer to the question what is the point of the past lives:
Xeno: "What's the point" of all those lives was the central question for the ancient Hindus, and much of their religion was trying to deal with that question. The radical departure for the Buddha is that "What's the point" is a flawed question, because it is unknowable.

I would say it’s not the question that’s flawed but the theory that gives rises to the question. You summed it all up earlier when you said it boiled down to epistemology. Beliefs are not knowledge, and if a combination of theories seems senseless to us, why should we believe it?

xeno: Ajahn Brahm's argument rests on three assertions, disappointing since he used to be a physicist. They are:
1.) There's lots of evidence for rebirth, people just don't like it.
2.) Anecdote. (He shares a story that leaves me dubious but its so personal to the particular family involved that trying to doubt it makes me look and feel like a monster.
3.) Wouldn't it be a beautiful idea if it were true.

3) is a big laugh. 1) and 2)remind me of NDEs, and if any of them provide evidence of some confirmable truth (like information the patient could not possibly have known during their temporary “death”), I will keep an open mind. There are many psychic experiences which we cannot explain.

XENO: (The Dali Llama has said there's good reasons to doubt it, and he's supposed to be the 14th reincarnation of a Buddhist teacher!)

This encourages me still more to drop the subject altogether, since there can be no answers to other questions relating to rebirth (the answers are "unknowable"). However, there are other points in your posts to comment on.

dhw: It’s not a mind or a soul, it’s immaterial, and in most cases it does NOT store memories of past lives.

Xeno: So the way I'm understanding it, it does indeed store memories of past lives. It just isn't a fully functioning *mind*.
And
Xeno: The store consciousness holds only the memories of past lives. This allows the Buddha to explain how those who reach very high meditative states can "recall past lives."

Dhw: But until you’ve reached a very high meditative state, you can’t remember a thing. So where does this mysterious “store consciousness” hang out during all the lives when we don’t even know we’ve got it? Another “unknowable”?

Xeno: "According to the Buddha's teaching, all beings except Arahants are subject to "renewal of being in the future" that is, to rebirth. Rebirth in the Buddhist conception, is not the transmigration of a self or soul but the continuation of a process, a flux of becoming in which successive lives are linked together by causal transmission of influence rather than by substantial identity."

DAVID: That implies there is no mental continuity, and one would not be conscious of the past life.

A crucial point! And unconsciousness of past life is confirmed above: you only remember past lives when you’ve reached a “very high meditative state”. (In passing, Matt,I'd like to echo David's admiration for your scholarship.)

DAVID: My wife is a born-again Christian. But I don't think that is what you refer to, based on its definition.

I’ve been chuckling ever since I read this, as I thought it was a great joke. (Your wife’s punishment for her past sins is to be born again as a Christian!) I think a sense of humour is one of the most crucial attributes for the attainment of balance in anyone’s character. I hope there’s evidence of the Buddha having a good laugh in between his thoughts on “suffering”.