From our other sites
The story
On 5ch’s Newsspeed VIP board, a provocatively titled thread — ‘The Buddha taught that the universe has no starting point’ — sparked a full-blown discussion about Buddhist reincarnation and cosmology. Drawing on the Sutta Nipata (considered the oldest layer of Buddhist scripture), the twelve links of dependent origination, and concepts like non-self (anatta) and dependent origination (pratityasamutpada), participants debated whether the ‘rebirth’ the Buddha taught is actually different from the soul-transmigration most modern Japanese people picture. The discussion also expanded into a back-and-forth over the ‘meaning of liberation’ — namely, how one lets go of attachment to the teaching itself after attaining enlightenment — as well as differing interpretations between Mahayana and early Buddhism.
What people said
Buddha: 'This is the truth.'
So what do we do with this?
So what do we do with this?
The Buddha never stated anything definitive about reincarnation.
He basically said not to bother thinking about things you can't figure out anyway.
He basically said not to bother thinking about things you can't figure out anyway.
Re: #4
That's a common misconception. Even the Sutta Nipata, considered the oldest layer of Buddhist scripture, has passages that seem to point to rebirth — like 'rebirth is exhausted, there is no return to the womb.'
And the twelve links of dependent origination aren't just about suffering — they can also be read as the chain of conditions that gives rise to rebirth itself.
Grasping → becoming → birth.
It's a stretch to say that's not describing rebirth.
That's a common misconception. Even the Sutta Nipata, considered the oldest layer of Buddhist scripture, has passages that seem to point to rebirth — like 'rebirth is exhausted, there is no return to the womb.'
And the twelve links of dependent origination aren't just about suffering — they can also be read as the chain of conditions that gives rise to rebirth itself.
Grasping → becoming → birth.
It's a stretch to say that's not describing rebirth.
Maybe that's true for this world, but who knows about other worlds…
Re: #8
The truth the Buddha taught runs through the entire universe.
It's a universal law.
In modern terms, you could call it the core operating system of the whole universe.
The truth the Buddha taught runs through the entire universe.
It's a universal law.
In modern terms, you could call it the core operating system of the whole universe.
Well, ordinary people can't understand it, which is exactly why the Buddha was reluctant to teach it in the first place.
Re: #11
Right, after his enlightenment the Buddha initially thought: this truth is too profound for ordinary people to grasp, so maybe it's enough that I alone have realized it.
Then Brahma appeared and persuaded him, saying, 'World-Honored One, please teach the Dharma. Well-Gone One, please teach the Dharma. There are beings with only a little dust in their eyes who will decline if they don't hear the Dharma — and some of them will understand it.' That's what made the Buddha decide to spread the truth.
Though, well, that part is religious legend rather than history.
Right, after his enlightenment the Buddha initially thought: this truth is too profound for ordinary people to grasp, so maybe it's enough that I alone have realized it.
Then Brahma appeared and persuaded him, saying, 'World-Honored One, please teach the Dharma. Well-Gone One, please teach the Dharma. There are beings with only a little dust in their eyes who will decline if they don't hear the Dharma — and some of them will understand it.' That's what made the Buddha decide to spread the truth.
Though, well, that part is religious legend rather than history.
So what even is 'the universe'?
Re: #12
The universe is things constantly influencing each other, changing, and influencing each other again — always caught in this flow, never stopping.
We're always inside this process.
This world has no beginning and no end.
No matter how far back you trace it, you never reach a single starting point.
Because for anything to arise, there has to be a condition that produces it.
And that condition has another condition behind it.
And no matter how far forward you go, you never reach a final point either.
An ending isn't annihilation — it's just conditions changing and shifting into the next phenomenon.
Look for the beginning, and there's always something before it.
Look for the end, and there's always something after it.
The world didn't start anywhere.
It's just countless causes and conditions piling up and endlessly changing.
We're part of that vast, eternal flow too.
We're born, we change, and we shift into the next change.
The flow never stops — it just keeps changing shape.
The universe is things constantly influencing each other, changing, and influencing each other again — always caught in this flow, never stopping.
We're always inside this process.
This world has no beginning and no end.
No matter how far back you trace it, you never reach a single starting point.
Because for anything to arise, there has to be a condition that produces it.
And that condition has another condition behind it.
And no matter how far forward you go, you never reach a final point either.
An ending isn't annihilation — it's just conditions changing and shifting into the next phenomenon.
Look for the beginning, and there's always something before it.
Look for the end, and there's always something after it.
The world didn't start anywhere.
It's just countless causes and conditions piling up and endlessly changing.
We're part of that vast, eternal flow too.
We're born, we change, and we shift into the next change.
The flow never stops — it just keeps changing shape.
Re: #16
Why do you think something like that exists at all?
Why do you think something like that exists at all?
Re: #18
There's no meaning to it.
There's no intent, will, purpose, or motive from some personal god behind it.
It's the same as water flowing from high ground to low ground.
There's no meaning to it.
There's no intent, will, purpose, or motive from some personal god behind it.
It's the same as water flowing from high ground to low ground.
Wasn't the Buddha ultimately just one practitioner and philosopher operating within an existing religious framework?
So maybe he was just speaking within the existing assumption that rebirth exists, without actually placing much importance on it himself.
So maybe he was just speaking within the existing assumption that rebirth exists, without actually placing much importance on it himself.
Re: #14
Even before the Buddha was born, India already had both the idea that the soul is reborn and the idea that death is total annihilation.
The Buddha took the middle path between those two, teaching that cause and effect continues and that's what constitutes rebirth.
Even before the Buddha was born, India already had both the idea that the soul is reborn and the idea that death is total annihilation.
The Buddha took the middle path between those two, teaching that cause and effect continues and that's what constitutes rebirth.
Re: #23
The world is all interconnected, so even if 'I' cease to exist through death, the dominoes I knocked over keep propagating through the world — doesn't that mean my individual disappearance doesn't stop the chain of dominoes?
Also, the 'rebirth' you're describing in that last paragraph still sounds like something different from the rebirth ordinary people mean.
The world is all interconnected, so even if 'I' cease to exist through death, the dominoes I knocked over keep propagating through the world — doesn't that mean my individual disappearance doesn't stop the chain of dominoes?
Also, the 'rebirth' you're describing in that last paragraph still sounds like something different from the rebirth ordinary people mean.
Re: #26
Death itself is also part of the chain of dependent origination — the next existence arises based on conditions like ignorance, karma, craving, and attachment.
If, after death, the conditions for producing the next existence still remain, then the next existence arises from those conditions.
Death itself is also part of the chain of dependent origination — the next existence arises based on conditions like ignorance, karma, craving, and attachment.
If, after death, the conditions for producing the next existence still remain, then the next existence arises from those conditions.
Re: #31
There's no unchanging entity carrying the cause-and-effect chain — so is there actually a subject that reincarnates?
There's no unchanging entity carrying the cause-and-effect chain — so is there actually a subject that reincarnates?
Re: #38
There isn't a subject that reincarnates.
Because of non-self (anatta), there's no fixed subject that gets reborn either.
But the continuity of cause and effect still holds even without a subject.
In other words, it's not that 'someone' is reborn — rather, the next life arises from conditions like craving, attachment, and karma.
Everything in this world — every phenomenon, every existence — is built on mutual dependence.
That's interdependence: when this exists, that exists. When this arises, that arises. When this doesn't exist, that doesn't exist. When this ceases, that ceases.
That's dependent origination.
For example, a plant seed can only sprout once soil, light, oxygen, and nutrients all come together.
Fire can only burn once fuel, oxygen, and heat come together.
Venus exists, my eyes exist, and the awareness of feeling dazzled exists — only then does the experience of 'feeling dazzled' arise. It doesn't happen with just Venus alone, and it doesn't happen with just me alone.
There's nothing in this world that exists as a standalone entity on its own — meaning nothing has inherent substance.
There isn't a subject that reincarnates.
Because of non-self (anatta), there's no fixed subject that gets reborn either.
But the continuity of cause and effect still holds even without a subject.
In other words, it's not that 'someone' is reborn — rather, the next life arises from conditions like craving, attachment, and karma.
Everything in this world — every phenomenon, every existence — is built on mutual dependence.
That's interdependence: when this exists, that exists. When this arises, that arises. When this doesn't exist, that doesn't exist. When this ceases, that ceases.
That's dependent origination.
For example, a plant seed can only sprout once soil, light, oxygen, and nutrients all come together.
Fire can only burn once fuel, oxygen, and heat come together.
Venus exists, my eyes exist, and the awareness of feeling dazzled exists — only then does the experience of 'feeling dazzled' arise. It doesn't happen with just Venus alone, and it doesn't happen with just me alone.
There's nothing in this world that exists as a standalone entity on its own — meaning nothing has inherent substance.
Re: #42
I can totally understand that.
But still, that's completely different from the rebirth modern Japanese people imagine, isn't it?
I can totally understand that.
But still, that's completely different from the rebirth modern Japanese people imagine, isn't it?
Re: #44
Yeah, I think so too.
Yeah, I think so too.
Re: #44
If we're talking about 'being reborn,' most people mean a soul.
For what it's worth, the Buddha denied the existence of a soul too.
If we're talking about 'being reborn,' most people mean a soul.
For what it's worth, the Buddha denied the existence of a soul too.
Isn't it less about 'escaping' the system and more just about having the right mindset to deal with it?
Re: #51
No, he clearly taught a method for escaping this system.
Craving and attachment, born from ignorance, cause suffering and give rise to the next existence.
So if you cut off that root cause, you inevitably cut off both suffering and rebirth — that's the actual truth of this world, the law of dependent origination: 'when this exists, that exists…' and so on.
No, he clearly taught a method for escaping this system.
Craving and attachment, born from ignorance, cause suffering and give rise to the next existence.
So if you cut off that root cause, you inevitably cut off both suffering and rebirth — that's the actual truth of this world, the law of dependent origination: 'when this exists, that exists…' and so on.
Re: #52
Basically, Buddhism is just 'logging out,' right?
Doesn't that feel like putting the cart before the horse? What do you think?
Basically, Buddhism is just 'logging out,' right?
Doesn't that feel like putting the cart before the horse? What do you think?
The parable of the raft kind of makes sense… and kind of doesn't.
Re: #54
I think it's the idea that in the end you have to let go of even your attachment to the teaching itself.
Pure Land Buddhism and Jodo Shinshu basically outsourced that whole problem to the afterlife.
I think it's the idea that in the end you have to let go of even your attachment to the teaching itself.
Pure Land Buddhism and Jodo Shinshu basically outsourced that whole problem to the afterlife.
Re: #52
Even calling it a 'way out,' it's not like once you understand everything, nothing scares you anymore — it's about constantly seeing rightly, thinking rightly, and acting rightly.
It's not like grabbing a Star in Mario and becoming invincible so you can just blast through everything — it's more like a strategy guide: time your moves carefully here, advance bit by bit there, full-power jump here.
I think 'a mindset for dealing with it' is the more accurate way to put it.
Even calling it a 'way out,' it's not like once you understand everything, nothing scares you anymore — it's about constantly seeing rightly, thinking rightly, and acting rightly.
It's not like grabbing a Star in Mario and becoming invincible so you can just blast through everything — it's more like a strategy guide: time your moves carefully here, advance bit by bit there, full-power jump here.
I think 'a mindset for dealing with it' is the more accurate way to put it.
Re: #56
It's less about attachment and more about the 'meaning' of it.
The idea that the very 'meaning' of attaining liberation becomes unnecessary and disappears once you're liberated…
that's the part I can't quite wrap my head around.
I keep feeling like the meaning of liberation should still exist even after liberation.
It's less about attachment and more about the 'meaning' of it.
The idea that the very 'meaning' of attaining liberation becomes unnecessary and disappears once you're liberated…
that's the part I can't quite wrap my head around.
I keep feeling like the meaning of liberation should still exist even after liberation.
Re: #57
Re: #58
The meaning of liberation doesn't need to persist after liberation.
For example, you drink water because you're thirsty — once the thirst is gone, the purpose of drinking water doesn't need to keep existing.
Liberation is the same: the purpose of ending suffering only has meaning until the suffering actually ends.
There's no need to stay attached to that purpose after the suffering is already over.
Re: #58
The meaning of liberation doesn't need to persist after liberation.
For example, you drink water because you're thirsty — once the thirst is gone, the purpose of drinking water doesn't need to keep existing.
Liberation is the same: the purpose of ending suffering only has meaning until the suffering actually ends.
There's no need to stay attached to that purpose after the suffering is already over.
Re: #59
Kind of like the butterfly effect, huh.
Kind of like the butterfly effect, huh.
Re: #60
Exactly, exactly.
We're inside this countless flow of cause and effect.
There's no 'true self' that could exist within that.
This body is made up of countless conditions — genetics inherited from your parents, the environment in the womb, diet, illness, aging, living conditions, and so on.
Personality, thoughts, and values are the same — they arise from countless conditions like innate temperament, environment, experience, and relationships with others.
If a 'true self' existed within all that, it would have to be a fixed, unchanging 'me.'
But nothing like that can exist.
Because the moment you hear someone's words and think about them, you're already being influenced from outside and changing — so you're no longer fixed and unchanging.
If you really were fixed and unchanging, no cause-and-effect relationship with the world could ever form, meaning you couldn't move, see, hear, know, or experience anything at all.
That's why he taught non-self, and denied the soul.
Exactly, exactly.
We're inside this countless flow of cause and effect.
There's no 'true self' that could exist within that.
This body is made up of countless conditions — genetics inherited from your parents, the environment in the womb, diet, illness, aging, living conditions, and so on.
Personality, thoughts, and values are the same — they arise from countless conditions like innate temperament, environment, experience, and relationships with others.
If a 'true self' existed within all that, it would have to be a fixed, unchanging 'me.'
But nothing like that can exist.
Because the moment you hear someone's words and think about them, you're already being influenced from outside and changing — so you're no longer fixed and unchanging.
If you really were fixed and unchanging, no cause-and-effect relationship with the world could ever form, meaning you couldn't move, see, hear, know, or experience anything at all.
That's why he taught non-self, and denied the soul.
Re: #63
Yeah, I get that this is the teaching, but I can't shake the feeling that 'the order is backwards.'
I feel like things started out close to nothingness, but through a whole winding process, something went out of its way to 'build' the mechanism of a living body and mind.
Just because that mechanism is imperfect, can you really deny its meaning entirely?
Yeah, I get that this is the teaching, but I can't shake the feeling that 'the order is backwards.'
I feel like things started out close to nothingness, but through a whole winding process, something went out of its way to 'build' the mechanism of a living body and mind.
Just because that mechanism is imperfect, can you really deny its meaning entirely?
Re: #66
Non-self doesn't equal 'meaningless.'
What the Buddha denied was the view that a fixed, unchanging true self exists — not that meaning or value can arise in the body and mind.
If anything, it's precisely because body and mind arise from various conditions that both suffering and happiness arise too, and there's meaning in understanding that causality and bringing suffering to an end.
Non-self doesn't equal 'meaningless.'
What the Buddha denied was the view that a fixed, unchanging true self exists — not that meaning or value can arise in the body and mind.
If anything, it's precisely because body and mind arise from various conditions that both suffering and happiness arise too, and there's meaning in understanding that causality and bringing suffering to an end.
Re: #66
I don't think he's denying the whole process of biological evolution.
I think he's simply describing a methodology and logical framework aimed at one goal: the Buddha himself couldn't bear the suffering of this world and wanted to escape it — to 'log out.'
I don't think he's denying the whole process of biological evolution.
I think he's simply describing a methodology and logical framework aimed at one goal: the Buddha himself couldn't bear the suffering of this world and wanted to escape it — to 'log out.'
We're constantly driven by 'I want this, I want that,' 'it should be this way, it has to be that way' — always pushed around by craving, attachment, desire, and a sense of lack.
If all of that disappeared completely, that would just be stillness, right?
And isn't that stillness itself happiness?
If all of that disappeared completely, that would just be stillness, right?
And isn't that stillness itself happiness?
Re: #88
Does that apply to 'mukya' types too? (slang riffing on 'inkya'/'yokya' — introvert/extrovert — meaning someone with basically no personality or drive)
Does that apply to 'mukya' types too? (slang riffing on 'inkya'/'yokya' — introvert/extrovert — meaning someone with basically no personality or drive)
Re: #88
That's not really happiness, though.
Isn't Buddhism not really a teaching about pursuing happiness in the first place?
That's not really happiness, though.
Isn't Buddhism not really a teaching about pursuing happiness in the first place?
The reason the Buddha used the concept of 'rebirth' is that Hinduism was dominant at the time, so he used it as an expedient means (upaya) to communicate with Hindus — the rebirth the Buddha meant isn't 'the recurrence of a self.'
To begin with, since 'all phenomena are without self' (anatta), this 'me' has no substance in the first place.
To begin with, since 'all phenomena are without self' (anatta), this 'me' has no substance in the first place.
Re: #111
And there it is — classic Mahayana move.
And there it is — classic Mahayana move.
Re: #111
The Buddha's theory of rebirth is precisely that rebirth still holds even without any substantial self.
The Buddha's theory of rebirth is precisely that rebirth still holds even without any substantial self.
He didn't teach out of a motive to reduce suffering — that motive would itself be a form of attachment.
The Buddha was just muttering to himself, and animals happened to gather around and listen.
The Buddha was just muttering to himself, and animals happened to gather around and listen.
Re: #122
He taught out of a motive to extinguish suffering, right?
He taught out of a motive to extinguish suffering, right?
Re: #122
'He wasn't trying to spread it, people just gathered on their own and it spread' — that's a pretty big stretch lol, animals don't just flock together like that lol.
Honestly, Mahayana downplays the historical sources in its effort to make Buddhism seem 'correct.'
The accurate view is: 'The Buddha wasn't fully enlightened, he taught a methodology for eliminating suffering, and yes, he had attachment.'
It's like the resurrection of Christ.
Protestants (the rough equivalent of Mahayana here) preserve 'correctness' by interpreting the resurrection as an expedient metaphor rather than an actual raising of the dead.
Catholics (the 'take the sources literally' camp) interpret it as a real resurrection.
But common sense says the correct answer is: 'the dead don't come back to life.'
'He wasn't trying to spread it, people just gathered on their own and it spread' — that's a pretty big stretch lol, animals don't just flock together like that lol.
Honestly, Mahayana downplays the historical sources in its effort to make Buddhism seem 'correct.'
The accurate view is: 'The Buddha wasn't fully enlightened, he taught a methodology for eliminating suffering, and yes, he had attachment.'
It's like the resurrection of Christ.
Protestants (the rough equivalent of Mahayana here) preserve 'correctness' by interpreting the resurrection as an expedient metaphor rather than an actual raising of the dead.
Catholics (the 'take the sources literally' camp) interpret it as a real resurrection.
But common sense says the correct answer is: 'the dead don't come back to life.'
Re: #123
No, it's not about 'reduce' vs. 'eliminate.'
The motive that led the Buddha to enlightenment was to reduce suffering, but he didn't attain enlightenment in order to reduce suffering, and he didn't teach in order to reduce suffering either (I know that sounds contradictory).
He simply became enlightened, and the teaching simply spread — there was no motive involved.
He didn't 'discover a methodology for eliminating suffering.'
He's not teaching a happiness manual — in fact, he's not really teaching anything at all.
There's a teaching, yet there's no teaching. I know that sounds like nonsense.
No, it's not about 'reduce' vs. 'eliminate.'
The motive that led the Buddha to enlightenment was to reduce suffering, but he didn't attain enlightenment in order to reduce suffering, and he didn't teach in order to reduce suffering either (I know that sounds contradictory).
He simply became enlightened, and the teaching simply spread — there was no motive involved.
He didn't 'discover a methodology for eliminating suffering.'
He's not teaching a happiness manual — in fact, he's not really teaching anything at all.
There's a teaching, yet there's no teaching. I know that sounds like nonsense.
Re: #125
> in fact, he's not really teaching anything at all
That's Nagarjuna's view from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way).
The 'not a single word was spoken' idea.
Only Mahayana says that.
> in fact, he's not really teaching anything at all
That's Nagarjuna's view from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way).
The 'not a single word was spoken' idea.
Only Mahayana says that.
Re: #125
That doesn't match the image of Shakyamuni depicted in the early Buddhist scriptures — that is, the historical record.
In the early scriptures, Shakyamuni clearly teaches the Four Noble Truths: suffering, the arising of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path to the cessation of suffering.
If anything, he repeatedly taught very concrete instructions: understand this suffering, abandon the cause of this suffering, realize the cessation of this suffering, cultivate this path.
That doesn't match the image of Shakyamuni depicted in the early Buddhist scriptures — that is, the historical record.
In the early scriptures, Shakyamuni clearly teaches the Four Noble Truths: suffering, the arising of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path to the cessation of suffering.
If anything, he repeatedly taught very concrete instructions: understand this suffering, abandon the cause of this suffering, realize the cessation of this suffering, cultivate this path.
Background and Key Points of This Discussion
One view from Buddhist studies raised in the thread holds that the Sutta Nipata, considered the oldest layer of Buddhist scripture, contains passages that hint at rebirth, and that the twelve links of dependent origination can be read not just as the arising of suffering but also as the chain of conditions producing rebirth. The key point of contention, however, was that the ‘rebirth’ the Buddha taught may not be the fixed transmigration of a soul, but rather a continuity of cause and effect premised on non-self (anatta) and impermanence — potentially different from the ‘reincarnation’ most modern Japanese people picture. The thread also touched on points where Mahayana and early Buddhism diverge in interpretation (such as whether the Buddha had any motive for teaching at all), but these represent particular scholarly positions rather than settled consensus in Buddhist studies. Readers should be aware that the explanations in the thread aren’t necessarily the ‘correct answer’ of Buddhism — they mix individual participants’ interpretations with the positions of specific sects, so the accuracy of the content isn’t guaranteed.
*This article is excerpted and summarized from the 5ch (Newsspeed VIP) thread “Buddha with an IQ of 200: ‘My bad, reincarnation is real, and the universe has no starting point’ ← Got Refuted 2,500 Years Ago”.
Leave a Reply