Can there be reincarnation without a self?

I have seen this many times, westerners new to Buddhism come to an Internet chat room like Reddit (which totally sucks) with the same fixed mindset.  For example, if the Buddha teaches there is no self, how can there be reincarnation?  Obviously, this person may have studied Buddhism for a few weeks or even a month.  Maybe more surprising are some of answers from scholars and monk translators.  Here is one from Bhikkhus Bodhi:

“The Buddhist term for rebirth in Pali is ‘punabbhava’ which means ‘again existence’. Buddhism sees rebirth not as the transmigration of a conscious entity but as the repeated occurrence of the process of existence. There is a continuity, a transmission of influence, a causal connection between one life and another. But there is no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another.” (Emphasis is mine.)

First of all there is no evidence in Buddhism that there is an absolute cutoff from the end of one life to the start of another life anymore than a wave ceasing and another arising are completely unconnected (it is through the medium of water that they are always, inherently, connected).

The careful research of Wijesekera published in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 84/3 (1964): 256, titled, The Concept of Viññāṇa in Theravada Buddhism, says:

“In view of such evidence the conclusion is difficult to avoid that the term viññāṇa in Early Buddhism indicated the surviving factor of an individual which by re-entering womb after womb (gabbhā gabbhaṃ: Sn. 278, cp. D.iii.147) produced repeated births resulting in what is generally known as Saṃsāra.”

In fact, the notion of a transmigrant like samsaric consciousness (not the self or ātman) connecting with a fertilized embryo (nāmarūpa) and after death reconnecting with still another embryo, is not outside of Buddhism.  It  is an important part of it.  According to K. N. Jayatilleke in his book, The Message of the Buddha:

“Man, according to the Buddha, is a psychophysical unit (nāmarūpa).  This is made up of three components - the sperm and the ovum which go to make up the fertilised ovum or zygote along with the impact of the stream of consciousness of a discarnate spirit (gandhabba) or what is called the re-linking consciousness (paṭisandhi-viññāṇa).”

We may even consider that thought (citta), mentation (mano) and consciousness (viññāṇa) are just particular modes or forms of spirit (tathatā) which only help to bind the worldling to samsaric consciousness and thus the cycle of rebirths.  There is, subsequently, no escape except to become a Buddha—Buddhahood being self-knowing spirit that alone is capable of saving sentient beings from the burden of too much suffering.

Comments

[dave b]

Limit the canon to the Dhammapada and all the argument over this goes away.

Where does it get anywhere close to no self teachings? Those arise from the teaching of the 5 aggregates (which it lacks) and from listing vijnana as one of them (which is confusing and stupid).

With no 5 aggregate list, the Dhammapada cannot lead to no self teaching.

They try to force it to by following the variant reading Sabbe dhamma anatta rather than the real reading Sabbe sankhara anatta, which even Buddhaghosa despite being a no self believing moron still says "dhamma here is sankhara." In other words, sankhara is the original reading. And Sabbe sankhara anatta is All formations are non-self, not All things are non-self. Problem solved. Formation = things formed from the 4 classical elements, or as we would say, things made of atoms = physical things. All physical things are non-self, i.e. your body is not your self (because the soul/spirit is).