Answering Nine Arguments Against the Teaching

by Ajahn Punnadhammo

Ajahn Punnadhammo is a Canadian Theravada Buddhist monk ordained in the Thai Forest Tradition. He spent many years as abbot of Arrow River Forest Hermitage in Ontario. During the early 2000s he participated actively in the talk.religion.buddhism newsgroup, where his posts were distinguished by directness, classical Theravada grounding, and a willingness to engage critics on their own terms.

This post, from September 2003, was written in response to a recurring pattern of debate Punnadhammo observed on the newsgroup: opponents of rebirth cycling through the same handful of arguments, which he found philosophically weak and rooted in misunderstandings of Buddhism, science, and logic. He takes each argument in turn — nine in all — and dismantles it.

The result is a concise, sharp summary of the Buddhist case for rebirth, written not as devotional affirmation but as philosophical defense: addressing not-self, Occam's Razor, the limits of materialism, the explanatory gap in consciousness studies, the difference between faith and the best-fit hypothesis, the misread Kalama Sutta, questions of historical reliability, and the accusation that the Buddha was either using skilful means or outright lying.

Originally posted to talk.religion.buddhism on 14 September 2003.

If anyone has a doubt about the cyclic nature of samsara, they should check in on the "rebirth" debates on this board. The opponents of the Buddha's teaching have a small repertoire of very lame arguments that they trot out again and again, like the wooden horses on the merry-go-round.

Argument One — Rebirth Violates Not-Self

This clinker goes back to at least the time of King Milinda. Just posing the question shows that the person is hopelessly muddled about Buddhism. Forget about rebirth for a moment — look at continuity within one lifetime. The only connection from moment to moment is cause-and-effect; there is no continuation of substance. Why should the death and birth moments be different from this?

Furthermore, it is the materialist, no-rebirth view that violates Buddhist not-self. A being that comes into existence from nowhere and disappears to nowhere has discrete boundaries. He is a defined entity with a beginning and an end. He is a real self. This is against the Buddhist teaching of not-self.

Argument Two — Rebirth Violates Occam's Razor

Those who argue this one need a shave themselves. New beings being created all the time out of nothing is quite a multiplication of unnecessary entities.

Argument Three — Rebirth Is Against Modern Science

This is the stupidest one yet. Rebirth is against nineteenth-century science, maybe. What the arguer really means is that rebirth is against the physicalist/materialist philosophy, which is not science.

A lot of the cutting edge of physics is pretty "spooky" and not at all in accord with the old "marbles in motion" view that these people seem to be stuck in.

Argument Four — The Physical Brain Is Enough to Explain Consciousness

Explain it then.

Some things are ontological primitives. Explain "mass" in terms of charge and spin. Can't be done. Explain mind in terms of matter: ditto.

Argument Five — Rebirth Is Just Based on Faith

This one is a laugh. Rebirth is the only hypothesis which best explains all the data, including case studies of children remembering, hypnotic regression, Tibetan tulkus, child prodigies, and so on.

What's particularly comical — or annoying — about this argument is how much the materialist/physicalist/reductionist view is itself the purest kind of dogmatism. It not only exists without the slightest shred of proof, but is only possible to maintain credibility by deliberately ignoring huge areas of experience and data.

Argument Six — The Buddha Said to Be Skeptical in the Kalama Sutta

Read the whole thing to the end and get back to me.

Argument Seven — After All, We Don't Know What the Buddha Really Said

Give me a break. We have a better record of the Buddha's life and sayings than anyone else from ancient times. Why aren't people ever skeptical about the existence or doings of Alexander or Caesar? Sometimes this whole "skepticism" thing is pretty silly.

Argument Eight — The Buddha Was Using Skilful Means, Going Along with What People Already Believed

The Buddha was not afraid to challenge other established beliefs, like the caste system or the self-view. What's skilful about lying?

Argument Nine — He Was Lying

This is the latest and the most ridiculous yet. I guess it shows the desperation of these people, trying to save a hopeless position.

Have I missed any?

Colophon

Posted by Ajahn Punnadhammo to talk.religion.buddhism on 14 September 2003. Ajahn Punnadhammo is a Canadian Theravada monk ordained in the Thai Forest Tradition, longtime abbot of Arrow River Forest Hermitage in Thunder Bay, Ontario. He contributed extensively to the Buddhist Usenet newsgroups in the early 2000s, engaging debates on doctrine, practice, and ethics from a grounded classical perspective.

This post is a characteristic example of his approach: direct, structurally clear, unwilling to soften the case. The nine arguments he addresses — from the not-self objection to the accusation of lying — represent the recurring objections to rebirth he observed in hundreds of newsgroup discussions. His refutations move between Buddhist doctrine, philosophy of science, and textual criticism with equal ease.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: <140920030938043529%arcc@CLIPTHIS_baynet.net>.

🌲