Reconciling the teachings of 'non-self' and 'rebirth' in Buddhism

Despite the fact that I have been dedicated to the practice of meditation and interested in Buddhist philosophy for over 10 years now, I do not consider myself a Buddhist. This is partly due to my unwillingness to form an identity around certain groups in general, whether spiritual/religious or other. There are also some aspects of Buddhist teachings that I do not espouse, and cause me to feel frustrated and alienated from some Buddhist groups. 

It hasn’t always been this way; I used to be more willing to accept all aspects of Buddhist teachings, but I now see the harm caused by my dogmatic interpretations. For example, I believed that there was something intrinsically moral about my strict interpretation of the 5 precepts and I believed that a failure to follow these ‘rules’ was a moral failing with serious consequences. In my early 20’s, I remember being told by a meditation ‘mentor’ that if I did not follow the precepts, there would be a 0% chance of being reborn as anything human ‘or higher’ in my next life (being born a human offers a remarkably rare and precious opportunity to become ‘awakened’), and that living an unethical life could result in rebirth in a ‘hellish realm’ (something that is apparently clearly stated in the Pali Canon, Buddhist scriptures in the Theravada tradition). I am not sure how strongly I believed this at the time, I think I still had some skepticism about the idea of rebirth, but I had gained so much benefit and self-understanding from the practice of meditation in the Theravada tradition, that I wanted to embrace all aspects of the teachings.  

Over the years, despite continuing to feel passionate about the practice of meditation and the benefits it can bring, I have struggled more and more to reconcile aspects of the teachings. For example, reconciling the teaching of ‘non-self’ with the teachings about ‘rebirth’. Or reconciling the teachings of non-self and impermanence (known as anicca) with the idea that anyone can achieve enlightenment with the right effort and that it is some kind of permanent state. This may seem unnecessary; after all, does it really matter whether the Buddha was a real person, what he really taught and whether the scriptures are ‘true’? Can’t I just take parts of the teachings and ignore the rest? But I feel that attempting to re-interpret common parts of the teachings that I disagree with (like rebirth) could help me to feel less alienated from Buddhist communities and could also help others to re-frame parts of the teachings in a way that is helpful. 

The idea of ‘non-self’ (known as ‘annata’) seems central to the Buddhist teachings; that there isn’t a distinct entity that defines ‘us’ and exists over time throughout our life. If we investigate closely, we notice that there isn’t ‘something’ at the core of what it means to be ‘me’ that is consistent and stable, it is all ‘empty phenomenon rolling on’. This view has always made sense to me and seems consistent with science: the brain creates the subjective experience of a ‘self’ as it is a functional mental construct. In reality, it is hard to find anything that exists unchanged over time-our cells are constantly being replaced and our bodies are constantly changing over time, including our brains. Some personality traits may appear to persist over time.  However, there isn’t anything of substance that makes up our personality; it is just patterns in our thoughts, feelings and behaviours,  which are still constantly changing.  Memories are the glue that create this illusion of self and the fact that people have a sense that someone has become a different person when they do lose their memory (such as someone with dementia or other type of brain damage) is evidence of this. Family or friends of people with dementia often say things like ‘it is like my mother has gone/is dead’ or ‘she isn’t the same person anymore’.

I find this teaching of non-self in Buddhism hard to reconcile with the teaching of ‘rebirth’, the idea that we are born again in a different forms after death as part of an endless cycle of death and rebirth called ‘samsara’, and that achieving enlightenment will end this cycle.  After all, if the feeling of there being a core continuous ‘self’ is an illusion created by our mind, what exactly is being ‘reborn’?

I recently read an article written by a Historian specialising in Buddhism about how many of the original teachings of the Buddha are likely to have been misunderstood and misinterpreted over time. He explained that Siddhatha Gotama (the Buddha’s actual name, Buddha just means ‘awakened’) was a real spiritual leader/teacher living around 400BC, although the popular account of his journey to fame (that he was a prince who became an ascetic etc) is very likely be fictional. According to some (somewhat weak) evidence from the older sections of the Pali Canon and other sources that he didn’t really explain, Siddhatha Gotama was known to stay silent and/or refuse to answer questions such as what happens after death, whether the soul is different from the body or what happens to an ‘enlightened’ person. He was trying to communicate to his followers that on an ultimate objective level there is no such thing as ‘the world’, ‘the body’ or a ‘soul’. Once you realise that all of human experience is actually created by mental constructs, you will realise that these questions don’t mean much. The article suggested that over time, most Buddhist traditions, beliefs and teachings have strayed very far from these original teachings.

Although the article didn’t articulate this specifically and this is all just speculation, I can imagine how this may have applied to the teachings of rebirth/reincarnation. It is easy to imagine how a teaching like ‘once you realise that your experience of there being a distinct self experiencing birth/death/suffering is an illusion, you will no longer experience these things’ could become interpreted more literally over time as ‘you will no longer die or be reborn once you reach enlightenment’. After all, ideas that are easier to grasp and understand are more likely to spread and capture the public’s interest. The whole idea of ‘rebirth’ could even have been a misinterpretation of the teaching of our interconnectedness and the illusion of a separate self. In some ways, we do not die as we are part of the universe, an idea that is explained well by this quote, that has been attributed (possibly incorrectly) to Einstein:

A human being is a part of the whole called by us “the universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest – a kind of optical illusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. – Albert Einstein

From the point of view of the Universe (that you are just a part of) I guess it is actually true that unethical behaviour leads to more ‘birth’ of suffering conscious states, so the idea of ‘rebirth’ (and unethical behaviour increasing the likelihood of rebirth in suffering states) is a useful analogy to explain that mechanism. For most lay followers of Buddhism in history, the teaching of rebirth may have more easily captured their imagination than the teaching of interconnectedness and non-self, which would have required years of meditation to understand on a visceral level. The idea of rebirth is also a teaching that could be used to control people’s behavior; after all, it is easier to motivate people out of fear than a sense of love, compassion or ‘one-ness’. The message ‘you better act morally or you will be reincarnated as an insect or even worse, in some hellish realm’ is a much easier way to control people’s behaviour than the teaching ‘we are all connected and your separateness is an illusion,  so it is important to look after all conscious beings’.

As mentioned, all that really matters is that parts of Buddhist teachings are useful and help me to be happier. But I find it interesting to speculate about how the core teachings may have changed over time depending on what was easier to spread/communicate, capture the wider public attention and control the behaviour of followers. Whether I call myself a Buddhist or not, I can’t ignore the fact that practicing these teachings is part of my identity,  and therefore reframing aspects of the teachings helps me to feel more part of a community that I value deeply.