text:
Is there an equivalent of heaven and hell in Buddhism?
According to most sources, a soul stays in samsara until it concentrates enough karma to get yet another rebirth.
However, I failed to find any sources explaining if this process is eternal. In other words, what happens if a soul has committed so many sins that it's unable to accumulate enough karma? Or, in other words, is there a "dead end" when no more rebirth is possible?

There is no sense of accumulating sins, per se; your karma (actions) change who you are; there is also no sense that it can ever be too much to recover from (eventually). Eventually, your karma will catch up with you, sending you to heaven or hell, and making it more difficult to accumulate further good or bad karma, until you usually wind up right back where you started, somewhere in the middle. Something like the law of diminishing returns; the better or worse your rebirth, the harder it is to make further corresponding karma.
At any rate, given the infinitude of samsara, there is no such thing as too late; if there is time to accumulate good or evil, there is also time for its effects to wear off.
See the Assu Sutta, SN XV.03:

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning
  point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered
  by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.

First of all, saṃsāra is the cycle of birth and rebirth. Within this cycle there is an unceasing flow of consciousness - not to be identified with a person, though - that passes from existence to existence. The only way out of saṃsāra is nirvāṇa - this is your "dead end". To reach this state all accumulation of new karman has to stop and all accumulated karman has to be extinguished. Unless nirvāṇa is attained at some point, the samsaric existence is without end. Without beginning, it is anyway.
Now, at the end of one existence, the flow of consciousness - vijñāna-srotas - is thought to enter the womb of the mother to form a new being, if rebirth takes place in the human sphere. other than the human sphere, there are five other spheres of rebirth. They are galled gati - more or less "gait", but also "way" or "station", sometimes, in Mahāyāna also loka - "world". These are the spheres of: gods, demons, animals, hell-beings and hunger-ghosts. Check here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_realm
I'm not hundred percent sure, but this seems to be rather a mahayanic conception. Note also, that salvation - escape from the cycle of births - is only possible in the human sphere, since for example gods are just to blissful, to feel a need to stop this process.
To get back to your question, in popular Buddhism there may well be a hell or different hells, where people are also thought to be punished according to their deeds. To confirm this, there is the famous Wewurukannala temple in Sri Lanka, called the hell temple, which is full of rather gruesome pictures of these hells, see, for example, here: http://lanka-houses.com/sightseeing/wewurukannala-hell-temple.html
Buddhist doctrine would rather explain these hells as painful states of mind.

Yes, there are approximate equivalent realms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology
Although, one thing to keep in mind is that the Buddha taught his followers not to speculate on cosmology, soul, or eternalism, since such speculation increases our suffering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
My best guess is that the stuff about other realms was added after the Buddha's death, as there was a lot of contact with Hindu/Vedic practices in the centuries that followed, moreso in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions.

There is also a sense in Buddhism that heaven and hell and psychological
The Zen monk Hakuin was asked by a Samurai warrior where heaven and hell were. For his answer Hakuin started to insult the Samurai. The Samurai was infuriated and drew his sword. Hakuin then insulted the sword which made matters worse. The Samurai's rage was now at its peak and he moved as if to behead Hakuin. At this point Hakuin  said

Here open the gates of hell

On hearing this and seeing Hakuin's utter composure the Samurai sheathed his sword and bowed. Hakuin then said

Here open the gates of heaven

For Hakuin and the Samurai heaven and hell are us and our responses.

Adding to @qweilun answer, on the subject of non-cosmology.

Although, one thing to keep in mind is that the Buddha taught his followers not to speculate on cosmology, soul, or eternalism...

Samsara, death and rebirth can be seen by a metaphorical perspective.

Within this cycle there is an unceasing flow of consciousness - not to be identified with a person, though - that passes from existence to existence.

You can look at you past and see how many different people you already were. That child of some decades ago don't exist anymore. That adolescent also now exists only as a memory. In a metaphorical sense we die, rebirth and cycle countless times through a single life.
So, back to the main question, heaven and hell also can be seen in a metaphorical sense. For example, when you achieve something important you can feel yourself in heaven; now when you think everything is going wrong with your life, it would feel like hell. Someone can be in the heaven in the morning, then feel in hell in the night.
And also karma can be seen as an accumulation of thoughts, certainties or feelings that makes you change, and propel the wheel of life.
As samsara implies, the cycle of phenomena keeps turning, it doesn't stop with a dead end.

Buddhism teaches about 31 planes of existence
But it doesn't teach about a soul staying somewhere or going from one place to another. No stay at any place is forever. But you can get stuck in hells for a long time if you commit 1 of 5 weighty bad Karmas like Matricide, Patricide etc. On the good side, you can attain Arupa Jana and get stuck in heavens for a long time. But the closest you get to a deadend is being stuck in Sansara(cycle of birth and death) because of your clinging to certain serious false views.

Firstly in Buddhism there is no concept of soul. Life is governed by the 3 marks of existence. Hence even the result of Karma is impermanent. Hence there cannot be any state which is eternal either positive or negative.
There is a state where no rebirth is possible. You have to transcend conditioned existence to get to this state.
Rebirth does not happen due to having accumulated karma. When you die you naturally get reborn. They happens when you run out of karma sustaining to this birth or the body cannot be retained any more due to decay or damage or end of the natural lifespan of the particular type of being. Your next existence is either due to a strong karma caused by something you did recently, habitual karma or some other mental state that may arise at the moment of death. If your mind is free from imbalance and attachment at the time of death then you'll reach this "deadend" which is Nirvana.
In addition the are multiple planes of existence which are have varying degrees of pain and pleasure. These also are analogous to heavens and hells.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Role of belief in Buddhism
As a westerner that self-identifies as Buddhist, I have struggled to understand the role of belief in Buddhist practice. In my culture, we are more familiar with the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) for which what one believes is central to the religion.
So, what if I choose to believe that nobody can be enlightened, therefore the Buddha was not enlightened? This question goes for other Buddhist concepts like karma too.

Buddhism is about come and see through wisdom not come and believe.

You don't need to believe anything in Buddhism, but a little faith can give you a boost in your practice. It would certainly be difficult to progress if you had no sense that the people teaching you knew what they were talking about.
But in the end, a good teacher will just tell you "This is the path to enlightenment", rather than "I am enlightened", and leave it up to you to discover the veracity of their claim.
Certainly, once you practice according to the Buddha's teaching, you will gain understanding about reality that will allow you to verify that karma and enlightenment are very real.

Thanks to ven. Yuttadhammo for the correct answer. I would just like to point out that ven. Yuttadhammo's answer is from Theravada's point of view. In other traditions, such as Pure Land, faith is of central importance - and in some subsects - it's even the final goal of this life (in Jodo Shinshu - attaining the true mind of entrusting / faith is the highest achievement for a practitioner of these Latter Ages).

Definitely, Buddhism requires belief in some things, for example in rebirth and karma. Do not believing in it or believing contrary to it would be wrong view, which is unwholesome deed.

I believe the Pali word of relevance here is saddha which might be better translated as "confidence". Like Yuttadhammo suggested, it wouldn't be productive to sit in a classroom listening to a teacher whom you had absolutely no confidence in. Your mind just wouldn't be receptive.

@catpnosis It would be more accurate to say the Eightfold Path of practice leads to, amongst other things, right view. Right View is definitely not a minimum requirement to be accepted into any (decent) Buddhist community.

The role of belief is that you should be believe in the practice enough to give it a fair trial.
If you do not believe in the technique to at least some extent you will not practice it seriously to get results. Or even try it out at least.
Once you see the results your faith in the technique is re enforced.
So the belief should be resultant of seeing the results for your self and not out of blind faith.
That is faith should be balanced with wisdom.

+1 This is in part how I see it too. Is it necessary to believe that lifting weights will make your muscles bigger? Well, no, you don't have to believe it. But you're not likely to lift weights unless you do believe it. I'm sure others would say there's even more to it than that, but for me it's enough to be getting on with for the time being.

In the scriptures of the Pali Tipiṭaka the Buddha quite frequently talks of saddhā, Sanskrit śraddhā, which means "faith, trust, confidence" and a host of other things. This is sometimes identified with the first link of the Noble Eightfold Path, sammā diṭṭhi, Sanskrit samyagdṛṣṭi.
The interpretation goes mostly in this direction: since ignorance is a condition of the samsaric life, people who are not enlightened have difficulty seeing the path to enlightenment, since all kinds of attachments interfere. Therefore, a being may put its trust in the teaching of the Buddha and start on the Noble Eightfold Path. From a certain stage onwards, indeed, with increasing insight in to the true nature of things, this initial trust is no more needed and that being can by itself discern the truth, the dhamma, the teaching of the Buddha.
Note, that śraddhā is already a Vedic terminus.

In addition to the above answers, although it is not direct answer, you could find very profound teaching around the same area in "Kalama sutta". The people in the city Kalama asked Buddha, what to believe and who to believe.
Buddha stated don't go by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'
When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering', then you should abandon them.
Ref:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta

Belief, as considering something you can't perceive as existent, isn't taught in Buddhism. I would risk myself saying that it just creates illusion.
Then there is something similar - faith. But in Buddhism it is more to trust in a teaching, than believing. We are used to use thought to solve all problems, so sometimes we need a "leap of faith" to take an action instead of keep fiddling on thoughts.
I prefer it as determination, an attitude that bypasses thought and creates action (even if it is in the mind level).

If you choose to believe nobody can ever be enlightened, like you said, then it's impossible to walk the Buddhist path. Can you at least allow for the possibility that enlightenment could exist? Just allowing that possibility is enough to start with. But if you dogmatically assert that enlightenment cannot exist, then there's no point to practice. It's like saying "There is no God - can I still be a Christian?" -
Faith in Mahayana Buddhism has a central role:
We say that unsurpassed awakening [bodhi] has faith as its cause. The causes of awakening are innumerable, but if stated as faith, this covers everything. (Nirvana Sutra)
But faith has to be balanced with understanding and insight (otherwise it can become blind fanaticism):
If a person does not possess faith and insight, such a person increases his ignorance. If a person possesses insight, but not faith, such a person will increase [his or her] distorted views. ... A person who has no faith will say, out of an angry mind: "There cannot be any Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha!"

An answer to this would be just as the following:
If you can "wake up in the morning with full energy, eat when you feel hungry, be able to pass the bowels when needed and sleep when the night falls and when you feel tired" - you would have understood.
One might say, "What are you talking about? aren't those what we do every day?"
Not really.
We wake up in the morning thinking of yesterday, when someone said something unpleasant to us, something that should have been finished, how much did you pay for the meal in a restaurant where the waiter was rude (or nice, that you must come back), etc.
We eat thinking of work, the co-worker who we need to pay attention to because he might be doing something ulterior, the "for-loop" the fails from time to time, etc etc.
We sleep thinking of tomorrow or next week, our holiday plans, what to wear, "how humiliated I was, when that Jack pulled a trick on me trying to impress the girl I try to get a date with", etc etc.
So, what is the role belief? As mentioned, one doesn't need to believe in anything.
There is no form. It is not the incense you burn or the perfectly cut rose wood that you set up in your home that make you a Buddhist, or how much you argumentatively "win" in a conversation with others about life or how many temples you have visited, etc etc.
As time goes by, and when the understanding is obtained, you lose the sense of "self" and thus "you". You mentioned Western and so I would take the freedom on making a comment correspondingly - in western culture, the "I" is huge, the "form" is more important and the "steps" must be followed sequentially (science) and the "things" must be studied and proven by mathematics and seen under the microscope; this is the only barrier I have experienced when one is learning to walk the path towards Buddhism.
What I have learnt is:
Observing. Learn how to observe yourself and the nature. If one can do something that is truly beneficial to other beings and livelihood that is not based on "self", it would be a good first step attained.

Belief is important in Buddhism. There is good dharma for belief called shraddha, and there is bad dharma opposite to belief, which is doubt in the right teaching, it's called vicikitsa.
Some people will tell that you don't need to believe in Buddhism in anything. This is wrong.
We can not directly know rebirth or working of karma, but this knowledge is important basic right view. We can only uphold this right view with belief. If we don't uphold this view, this is wrong view, and it's unwholesome deed (and cause of other bad deeds) resulting in accumulation of demerit.
And from gnoseological point of view, belief is important mental factor in learning. You need to believe teacher to learn, it can not be otherwise. You can not be skeptical (or otherwise dislike given knowledge) to learn in in a good way.
Difference with Abrahamic religions is that you should not just rely on single belief as most important thing, you need also to learn and acquire direct knowledge.

I think 'Shradda' can be easily misunderstood by many people. As an example, I think it is the belief you acquire by understanding something. As an example, if you understand Newton's first law, you start believing it. That is the shardda on Newton's first law. I believe you need to have a very 'CLEAR MIND' when you start to learn a Buddhist theory. Thus,  you will understand and start believing it. That is the right way of acquiring 'Shradda'.

My response came above against your curiousity. A belief.
Buddhism is a set of understanding, belief and teaching. Being a student/learner ,it is very important to have Faith in what you are doing, but being a step-taker it is all about strengthening your faith which means you are now all set to set a belief. Everything we read and get from other's (even buddha's life incidents) is a part of reality for now (this present). UNDERSTANDING all that the way it was supposed by THE TEACHER is THE FAITH. Acting as per that is about reincarnation, that's THE BELIEF. Having an urge that you still need to learn more, Beyond all of you and your knowledge and practice. But There's and here will always be something that can compel you to go beyond all these, your past. That something is you. Your kind mind. Buddhism isn't about attaining Nirvana and beyond that. It is just a WAY OF LIVING. All is on you 'what you ask to yourself when you are conscious ?

Sorry jitin, I cannot understand this answer.

"Believe" is actually the most required prerequisite, not only to listen to the Dhamma but also to put an effort to get results you are not able to know for now: Suffering - Believe and the key out of it.
In contradiction to maybe dealers in Dhamma, who make people believe that no believe is required, you may also look into the questions of King Milinda who have been answered very wisely, for example: ‘And how is aspiration the mark of faith?’
In the case one would say:

But in the end, a good teacher will just tell you "This is the path to enlightenment", rather than "I am enlightened", and leave it up to you to discover the veracity of their claim.

He would actually say that the Buddha was not a good teacher, since there have been lot of occasions, where he simply used the fact that he is awakened (and made people believe so) "The Tathagata is worthy and rightly Self-Awakend" even had no other change as to argue in this way.
Not to speak, how could one say "this is the path to enlightenment" without neither knowing by him self, or have strong believe.
So it's for no purpose to make people in doubt believe that there doubts are even more of value as saddha, does it make people believe that one does not cheat? And does it actually or not, given of what the Buddha taught.

The central tenet I have found from most belief sets has been "what must be done to make you think of others before yourself". I see that Buddhism is no different here. To that extent faith would be very helpful.
But as others have noted faith is not necessary. From a laymen's perspective there are many logical reasons to select the Buddhist path. The actual, mechanical concept of karma (vice retributional) being a prime example.
Our goal as humans is to interact with trust. As Buddhists it is to assist others in finding enlightenment (Shinshu pledge) and our eventual goal as 3rd dimensional creatures is to break these bonds of rebirth and pierce the veil to the next dimension so we wont be bound by time.

A beginner should believe (have faith) that the practice (Path) is functional, that is all.

let us think upon what is belief/saddha,trust etc etc?----it is attained by two ways. First all of us have carried out experiments in science lab in our schools. i am not talking about the higher education/college etc bcs we change our branches i. some one chooses economics, where no relation to experiments in lab and like wise. So in our schools during our science practicals ,the teacher comes he instruct us, take that blue litmus and dip in that solution . we dip, the colour is changed to red.same thing goes on for red litmus. we write in the conclusion column of our journal . such and such litmus turns blue/red in such and such solution.If any one comes and say no your conclusion is wrong . we argue with him ,i have seen it my own eyes,how can you say so?. This is the faith/trust saddha arrived after carrying out the experiment by ourselves and seeing the results then and there. In this what we have done ? . prior to start of the experiment there was no any conclusion. we simply have obeyed the instruction of our science teacher and met with the truth of the changing of colour of litmus.After this we have developed faith on that particular phenomenon. The other method of attaining faith/saddha,trust/belief is just following blindly without seeing /experiencing by our own the truth of any phenomenon initially. Belief is also what? it is just blind following of something which is propagated in scriptures,said by wise etc etc. In this type of belief the danger is that the belief shatters when something goes wrong,against the propagated outcomes gained after keeping faith,belief,trust. So the only way is  start following the instructions of science teacher without prerequisite of belief/faith/saddha and after seeing /experiencing by your ,. ownself. the experienced conclusion after the experiment will take you in deep and deep into the truth irrespective of your belief/faith/sadha /trust. having faith.belief,saddha is of no use. you have to experiment yourself anf see the truth. there will be no option but to believe the truth. In school, there is need to pass the exam, go in higher grade, gain marks which makes us remain present in the science lab though we wish it or not. But in real life ,there is no any higher grade to obtain,gain marks,pass the exam. Then what it will make us to remain present in lab and do the experiment?. No in any happy happy goody goody situation no we do it. But as life is a great teacher, it will bring in the situations when you will think of doing the experiments. Then that will be the start of the journey. very rare is anybody having interest/desire/curiosity about dhamma,enlightenment,liberation.  So just pray, that situation comes early.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How to combine Orthodox Christianity and Buddhism?
I was baptized into Orthodox Christianity in childhood. During recent years, I've been living in Thailand, attending worship in temples, offering alms to monks, and participating in other ceremonies on occasional basis. I was never thought it might compromise Christianity in any way.
Recently I met a highly religious person from my country who told me this would be unacceptable. I tried to figure out some arguments, but they failed to provide me with any, repeating that it's simply a wrong thing (well, that's probably why it is called Orthodox).
As I live in another country, I think it's a good thing to become a part of local society, and attending Buddhist ceremonies and rituals seems to be a good thing to me.
I found many articles about this topic for Catholic Christianity, but could not actually find anything about Orthodox.
What is the optimal strategy for me to keep attending Buddhist ceremonies and not be blamed by those who say I must keep worshipping only my religion from back home?

This seems like more of a question for Eastern Orthodox Christians; Buddhism obviously has no problem with you attending ceremonies as a Christian... maybe it's time to question the Orthodox Christians you listen to? OTOH, from a Buddhist POV, blame and praise are unavoidable :)

Agreed that blame and praise are unavoidable. Great to hear that you are offering alms though. Just to offer my opinion, the concept of membership in a religion doesn't need to enter into Buddhist practice. You can attend ceremonies and offer alms, and you can even formally take 5 precepts and practice meditation, without any semblance of membership in a religion. Although, formally taking the precepts bears resemblance to a religion-joining ceremony.

This question appears to be off-topic because it is about Christianity, rather than Buddhism, since the people that are blaming you (and hence causing your problem) appear to be Christians. Your question may be on-topic at [christianity.se]; check their help center to be sure.

You are mixing things my friend... Concept of Buddhism and Christianity are way different to each other. It's like you are trying to eat your pasta with soil for dinner. The end result will be useless

I personally feel trying to Christianize Buddhism is dangerous for the latter. The 2 tradition's world view are just not compatible. In the former we are sinners lacking potential and there is a creator God while in the later we all are pure and possess potential and there is no jealous angry creator God whom we must 'obey'.

Buddha is actually saint in Orthodox Christianity, Saint Josaphat.

I'm very familiar with Orthodox Christianity.  There are a lot of parallels between Orthodox Christianity and Buddhism, when you compare the hesychastic practice of prayer and Buddhist meditations.  Just live a life of love and you should on the right track.

This question seems to be regarding Orthodox than Buddhism.

@JohnFonseka, this question has been closed for 1¼ years so far.

Okay, for the purpose of providing an answer, I've gone to this site:
http://www.antiochian.org/whatorthodoxbelieve
which, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to present the views of the Eastern Orthodox church, from their POV.
The only thing I can see as being a problem, would be the phrase, taken a bit out of context from Timothy:

"From such withdraw yourself' (1 Timothy 6:5).

said to refer to cults. The actual passage (KJV) is:

Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Obviously, it is up to the person doing the interpreting as to whether or not Buddhism is "destitute of the truth", and whether that would then be enough to require you to "withdraw thyself".
Either way, your question is actually about strategy, so, given the assumption that you don't really care what the church has to say as long as you aren't subject to their censure, I imagine it would be enough to just not speak about it to them. I don't assume you'd be found out otherwise.
It's really the best, I think; speech that is unpleasant, e.g. telling a devout Christian that you are participating in what they view as a cult, should only be delivered with care. (See the Abhaya Sutta, MN 58, for a discussion of unpleasant speech).
So, td;lr: unless you think you can convince your fellow Christians that you are not really committing sin by participating in Buddhism, best would be to just avoid mentioning it. Or, you know, leave Christianity and become Buddhist ;)

I have a similar dilemma. And I just meditate and carry on, where 'carry on' equals 'just avoid mentioning it' :P


text:
When were women first welcomed into Buddhist orders?
I know that in the early days of Buddhism, it was for men only. To practice, you had to be a monk, and to be a monk, you had to be a man. Perhaps this reflects the attitudes of the time, but today, my experience of Buddhism has been as something that welcomes men and women equally, even when that's still in a segregated way.
Historically, when did this change come about, and what first triggered it?

According to the texts (Cv 10), after the Buddha returned to visit his father in Kapilavatthu, his aunt and step-mother, Mahapajapati Gotami, followed him back to Vesali and eventually ordained her using the eight garu dhammas as her higher ordination. He then gave the injunction that the male monks were to ordain the female monks, which was the beginning of the bhikkhuni sangha.

1. Now Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī went up to the place where the Blessed One was, and bowed down before him, and stood respectfully on one side. And, so standing, Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī spake thus to the Blessed One: 'What course, Lord, should I pursue towards these women of the Sākya clan?'
Then the Blessed One taught Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī and incited her, and aroused her, and gladdened her with religious discourse; and she, so taught, incited, aroused, and gladdened, bowed down before the Blessed One, and keeping him on net right hand as she passed him, she departed thence.
Then the Blessed One, in that connexion, delivered a religious discourse, and said to the Bhikkhus, 'I allow Bhikkhunīs, O Bhikkhus, to receive the upasampadā initiation from Bhikkhus.'
2. Now those Bhikkhunīs said to Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī: 'Neither have you received the upasampadā initiation, nor have we; for it has thus been laid down by the Blessed One: "Bhikkhunīs are to be initiated by Bhikkhus."'
Then Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī went to the venerable Ānanda, and [repeated their words to him]. And the venerable Ānanda went to the Blessed One, and [repeated them to him].
'In that moment, Ānanda, when Mahā-pajāpatī the Gotamī took upon herself the Eight Chief Rules, that was to her as the upasampadā initiation.'
-- Cv 10.2 (Rhys-Davids, trans)

Mahapajapati Gotami was his aunt or his stepmother ?

She was both :)

Is there a date to go with this occurrence?

Re: James Jenkins question, "Is there a date to go with this occurrence?" - the answer depends upon when we date key events in the Buddha's lifetime. There is some scholarly debate about this question.
According to the "Bhadda Kapilani Theri Apadana", one of the chapters of the Theri Apadana book of the canonical Pali-text Khuddaka Nikaya collection, the Buddhist Bhikkhuni Sangha was established and it became possible for women to enter the Buddhist monastic community five years after the establishment of the Bhikkhu Sangha.
According to Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhist tradition, this event is commemorated on the lunar calendar on the full moon of September.
According to the reckoning of the Thai Buddhist Era, the full moon of September 2014 CE will be the 2597th anniversary of the foundation of the Buddhist Bhikkhuni Sangha.
It is important to note that some monastic scholars, i.e., Bhikkhu Sujato, speculate that there may have been bhikkhunis, such as Bhadda Kundalakesi, prior to that date.

The sutta story of the ordination of the Buddha's aunt, Pajapati, at the behest of Ananda, implies that the order of nuns did not exist, is dubious, since there is another story in the Vinaya in which Pajpati clearly joins an existing order of nuns. If one takes a comprehensive view, the two stories are irreconcilable, whereas it is inconceivable that the Vinaya story would be invented in response to the sutta story.
Therefore, the sutta story must be a fabrication by monks to justify their discriminatory attitude to the order of nuns, mirroring the deep misogyny of late Vedic society. The establishment of the order of nuns appears to have been allowed as a concession in the First Buddhist Council, headed by Mahakassapa, an ascetic, despite the Buddha's more lax attitude to women, for which Ananda was blamed.
Pajapati sought ordination when the Buddha's father, Suddhodana, died, four years after the Buddha's Enlightenment experience. Possibly the Buddha was concerned about the safety or reputation of the nuns and delayed ordaining women somewhat, but the suttas clearly show the Buddha interacting with and teaching women without making any difference between men and women. He also emphasizes the importance of there being women at all stages of spiritual attainment in order for the sangha to be complete.

Who are these "many scholars"? If this were Wikipedia you'd be getting the "weasel words" tag.

Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism, page 822. Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, Kansai University of Foreign Studies, Hirakata, Japan, 1980, reprinted Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1987, 1989, pages 57-9, point (6).

This is an outrageous accusation! Scandalous even to suggest Buddhism is for only men. I would say Buddhism is for MAN generally. but to suggest that Lord Buddha was able to reach enlightenment because he was born with a penis and testicles is pretty gross. Lord Buddha represents the ability of all sentient beings. Lord Buddha is Buddha Nature it is what one sees in the eyes of a sentient being who suffers greatly.
Historically there was never a change that came about. There was Lord Buddha and his followers. This is ultimate reality.
“Attitudes of the time” is void the concept of time is void. Time is not subject to 8 world winds! Blasphemy!

As a woman how is it possible I am a Buddhist?!

I think the OP is referring to history as told in the suttas and the vinaya, i.e. that the order of bhikkhunis was created after the order of bhikkhus was already established (both during the lifetime of Gautama Buddha) -- and that is the "history" which the question is asking about.

Op states that in the early days it was for men only to "practice"

Does Lord Buddha sitting under the bodhi tree for years count as practice?

Couldn't anyone do that?

Monasticism came after the fact it is dependently originated

Anyone can "practice". Allegedly though, for the first 6 years after his enlightenment, it was only men (monks) not women (nuns) who were with the Buddha in the Buddha's Sangha -- after which some women asked to be ordained too (as nuns) and so the vinaya (the rules of discipline for monastics) was altered to accommodate them too (albeit somewhat separately from the monks).


text:
What exactly is Jhana?
What exactly is the theory of jhana, how does it come about and how does it relate to the buddhist practice and everyday life?
feel free to answer in depth.

I agree with Yuttadhammo that your question is a bit too broad at this time. "What is jhana?" is definitely a fine question, but when you add on "How does jhana come about? How does jhana relate to Buddhist practice and everyday life?", you're getting way too broad. I recommend that you make your question only about what jhana is, and then ask further follow-up questions about specific ways in which you can apply the idea of jhana to Buddhist life.

Agreed. There are at least two questions in here.

Originally in Hindu yoga and Jainism, Jhana/Dhyana was deliberate thinking on a given topic.
The word seems to share its root with Sanskrit verb "dhyayati" (pronounced JAH-YA-TEE), that supposedly means "to think over", "to imagine", "to visualize".
Jains, the primary contenders for a honorary title of "precursors to Buddhism", used to recognize four types of Dhyana:

Artta Dhyana -- serious mulling over problems and issues coming from one's duties and responsibilities
Rudra Dhyana -- cruel mulling over evil plans
Dharma Dhyana -- rightful mulling over virtuous subjects
Shukla Dhyana --  pure mulling, non-conceptual concentration.

Apparently, Buddha's first teacher, Arada Kalama, taught Shukla Dhyana through visualizing oneself in the center of progressively empty context (village --> empty field --> empty sky --> nothingness), culminating in a state of thoughtless concentration with no content.
While Buddha's second teacher, Udraka Ramaputta, supposedly taught him a different practice, that of deliberately thinking the opposite thoughts (so-called "antidotes") to the ones the mind was dominated by, the target state being one of perfect ambiguity.
Buddha famously mastered and then rejected both target states, instead proposing his own progression of dhyana themes, targeted at achieving first a disgust of this body with its lowly interests, then, once the poisons of worldly desires were destroyed by the antidote of disgust, at generating a joyful mind (first with discursive support, then directly), followed by a calm-and-positive mind, and finally an unfettered mind that sees things as they are (tatha). He subsequently replaced disgust of this body with mindfulness of breathing as the object of meditation he recommended to entry-level students.
A state of having mastered an ability to freely enter into and maintain the first of these states (joyful mind with discursive support) is called "the first jhana".
A state of having mastered an ability to freely enter into and maintain the second state (joyful mind without discursive support) is called "the second jhana" and so on.
In this case the word "jhana" has a more specialized meaning of "level of mastery of Buddhist meditation" rather than "meditation" in general.

If this answer is a supported by references, I would be thankful if you could add them.

Sanskrit verb Dhyayati: http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=+dhyayati&trans=Translate&direction=AU
Jain Dhyana: http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/arhat/dhyana.htm
Buddha's teachers and their practices: MN 26, MN 36, MN 121
Buddha replacing disgust with mindfulness of breathing: SN 54.9
What else do you want to know brother? :)

Thank you! What about the specific methods of Alara Kalama & Uddaka Ramaputta?

You have to read MN 26 or MN 36 very carefully, then MN 121. In MN 26 you can see "Alara Kalama ... declared the dimension of nothingness" and "Rama ... declared the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception". Then in MN 121 you can see how nothingness and neither perception nor non-perception are attained (by following the instructions Buddha received from his teachers), and then transcended (Buddha's unique part). Also, check out DN 16 for more info on Alara Kalama's practice of nothingness.

I understand how those conclusions about Alara are met, even though they are not explicitly mentioned in the references. Thank you. I know Uddaka was Jain but how did you relate Uddaka's practice to Anekantavada?

Well, I got a few hints from Buddhacarita, plus the fact that Udraka was a Jain, and that Jains practiced syadvada...

Jhāna, in Theravada Buddhism, refers to the act of meditation:

The (popular etym -- ) expln of jhāna is given by Bdhgh at Vism 150 as follows: "ārammaṇ' ûpanijjhānato paccanīka -- jhāpanato vā jhānaŋ," i.e. called jh. from meditation on objects & from burning up anything adverse (PED, p. 286)

According to the Pali commentaries, it can be of two types:
ārammaṇūpanijjhāna - meditation on objects
lakkhanūpanijjhāna - meditation on characteristics
The former refers to tranquility (samatha) meditation which takes a specific, conceptual object as its focus. The latter refers to insight (vipassanā) meditation, which takes ultimate reality as an object, focusing on cultivating understanding of impermanence, suffering, and non-self (the three universal characteristics) as a vehicle to disenchantment.
The topic of the jhānas is discussed in depth and hotly debated around the Buddhist universe. Check out the great jhana debate on dhammawheel.org as an example.
As a side note, I'm not sure if such a broad, open-ended question is really appropriate for this sort of site. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

im not sure i understand exactly what the type of question you're describing is...

I second the side note that we need specific questions.

Just curious: Is jhāna cognate with Sanskrit dhyāna (which means meditation)?

Yes, it's the same word; also Chinese 'Chan' and Japanese 'Zen'

...and English 'know' and Scottish 'ken'

Jhāna is the Middle-Indian form of Sanskrit dhyāna, which is a simple derivation from the verbal root dhyā or dhyai, meaning "to think of, contemplate, recollect".
In early Buddhism there seem to be two contending theories of the path of enlightenment. The first one is the noble eightfold path, which is quite well known, I suppose. The second is a more technical instruction on meditative stages. The first four of these stages are called the four dhyānas or jhānas. These stages can be found in DN 2 and 3, as well as in MN 27 and 38:

"Having abandoned these five hindrances — imperfections of awareness that weaken discernment — then, quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation.
"This, brahman, is called a footprint of the Tathagata, a scratch mark of the Tathagata, a tusk slash of the Tathagata, but a disciple of the noble ones would not yet come to the conclusion, 'The Blessed One is rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One; the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has practiced rightly.'
"Then, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, one-pointedness of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation — internal assurance.
"This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathagata, a scratch mark of the Tathagata, a tusk slash of the Tathagata, but a disciple of the noble ones would not yet come to the conclusion, 'The Blessed One is rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One; the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has practiced rightly.'
"Then, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.'
"This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathagata, a scratch mark of the Tathagata, a tusk slash of the Tathagata, but a disciple of the noble ones would not yet come to the conclusion, 'The Blessed One is rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One; the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has practiced rightly.'
"Then, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress — he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain.
"This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathagata, a scratch mark of the Tathagata, a tusk slash of the Tathagata, but a disciple of the noble ones would not yet come to the conclusion, 'The Blessed One is rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One; the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has practiced rightly.'
(MN 27, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.027.than.html)

These four stages are equated with the eigth element of the Noble Eightfold Path, Samyaksamādhi; they are the direct prerequisite for the liberating insight. The texts go on to explain that with this state of mind, the Tathagata-to-be then consecutively directs his mind to his former existences, passing away and arising of beings, the knowledge of the destuction of impurities, whereby finally he attains the realization of the four noble truths and is freed from further births.
Four more meditative "ranges" are prominent in the scriptures, these are

ākāśānantyāyatana - the range of infinite space
vijñānānantyāyatana - the range of infinite consciousness
akiñcanyāyatana - the range of nothing
naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana - the range of neither ideation nor non-ideation

These meditative "places" were obviously taught by the upanishadic teachers of the Buddha and of ascetics of the time of the Buddha. The way into these is from the corresponding (first, second, ...) jhāna. (cp. MN 8, should also be there in DN 1)

Compare also SN II, 210 = SN II.16.9, which I just found in addition. It deals almost exclusively with jhanas and miraculous powers.

I think the questions you ask are important and very broad. You might consider splitting them up or keeping only the first question "What exactly is Jhana?".
I will point you to some of the litterature where you can find answers on your own.
Here its important to couple the studying with practice or else you will not really understand what Jhana is. You will only understand it intellectually which is like only being able to peek through the door while practicing insight meditation is like opening the door and walking into the room.
Or like the onion-simile. Intellectual knowledge will only allow you to penetrate the top layer while experiental knowledge gained through insight meditation will allow you to penetrate into the deepest layers and the core.
I suggest you check out;
The Visuddhimagga on p. 131-162 the Jhanas are treated.
The Jhanas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pali Suttas by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. Here Bhikkhu Bodhi goes through the Jhanas, Right Concentration, Stream Entry and other important stuff related to Jhanas.
Meditation lecture by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Here Bhikkhu Bodhi talks about both Vipassana & Samatha meditation and explains the 5 hindrances and the Jhanas. I think this lecture is very good and any meditator would learn a lot by listening to this talk.
A Critical Analysis of the Jhanas by Henepola Gunaratana. Here is an analytical study of the Jhanas. It goes through the hindrances and the Jhanas.
Lanka

What exactly is the theory of jhana

In simple terms, Jhana is to look at something clearly or closely. [Abhidharmartha Pradipika, vol 1, p 71] It can be something pertaining to the ultimate realities or a conceptual object.
Also see my answer: What to make of Jhanas as explained in the pragmatic dharma movement?

how does it come about and how does it relate to the buddhist practice

Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta or The Discourse on the Dharma in Brief mentions you should develop the Jhana factors on the 4 Sathipattana and 4 Brahmavihara.

everyday life?

In daily interaction you create fabrication, but if you keep your focus on the 4 Sathipattana and 4 Brahmavihara with emphasis on arising and passing of feeling (or phenomena which is felt), you can stop or tame the creation of new fabrication hence becoming.


text:
What exactly is the logical relation between the links in the twelvefold chain of Pratītyasamutpāda?
I'm struggling hard to make final sense of the chain of "dependent origination". In the oldest texts in Pali and Sanskrit, already, there are different explanations.
The Mahānidānasutta, where the chain has just nine links, the general formula is

x-paccayā y

meaning

through the condition of x, y (is).

Now the question arises, what kind of condition this is thought to be: a sufficient condition? A necessary condition? Or both of them?
The second part, states quite clearly, that if x is not there, then y is also not there, implying necessity of x for y.
Now, a general rule (e.g. Majjhima Nikaya 38, 19) states:

imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati

which translates as:

If that is, this is, through arising of that, this arises

This is also consistent with a parallel in the Sanskrit Catuṣpariṣatsūtra but not with the view, that we are dealing with mere necessary conditions. They need to be sufficient, for this general statement to apply.
Now here things become even more complicated, since another general rule, actually a seemingly extended version of the former states (MN 79, 7, also in SN and Udana)

imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati; imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati

which now means

When that is, this is, through arising of that, this arises; when that is not, this is not, with cessation of that, this ceases.

implying biconditionality.
How are the different versions explained? What is, in the end, the relation between the links? What can be thought to be the Buddha's original version and intention?

Actually, looking again at the quotes I realized, that a correct translation would be "If this is, this is (also); through arising of this, this (also) arises", since imassa and imasmim are just inflected forms of the very same idam. The same applies for the Skt. parallel asmin sati...

Great content. Looking forward to more Q&A from you.

As I understand, the relationship is that of mutual implication. This meaning is reflected in the name pratitya-samutpada, that is often translated as "dependent co-arising" and such.
Mutual implication means one of the categories serves as context for the other and the other way around. Top is defined against bottom and vice verse. Life is defined against death and vice verse. This (upclose) is defined against That (far). Subjective is defined against Objective.
The twelve nidanas are meant to explain the emergence of the notion of Death by implication from Birth, of Birth by implication from Identifying with Separate Being, of Identifying with Separate Being by implication from Goal-making, of Goal-making by implication from Temporal Projection, of Temporal Projection by implication from Sensation as Result, of Sensation as Result by implication from Contact, of Contact by implication from Doors onto the world, of Doors onto the world by implication from Objects, of Objects by implication from Recognition, of Recognition by implication from Imprints, of Imprints by implication from Ignorance.

Actually this is the only interpretation which is consistent with logic and all the quoted statements. The problem here is, that in Pali Abhidhamma it is held - as in Dhammayutta's answer - that there is always a multitude of conditions. If there is a mutual implication of single conditions, then there can't be any other conditions.

In pratityasamutpada there are actually eleven links, as each causal link occurs between one of twelve states.
The relation is described as "yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā idappaccayatā"—“that wherein is reality (tathatā), not unreality (avitathatā), not otherness (anaññathatā), specific conditionality: [that is called dependent origination]”, and in detail is explained as this:

Because particular states are produced by particular conditions,
  neither  less nor more, it is called reality (suchness, tathata).
  Because once the conditions have  met in combination there is no
  non-producing, even for an instant, of the states  they generate, it
  is called not unreality (not unsuchness). Because there is no arising
  of one state with another state’s conditions, it is called not
  otherness.  Because there is a condition, or because there is a total
  of conditions, for these  states beginning with ageing-and-death as
  already stated, it is called specific  conditionality. (Visuddhimagga)

So, this is both sufficient and necessary conditions. But, it's important to know that pratityasamutpada is a brief explanation, almost enumeration, and not all conditions are named, only so-called representative cause and fruit. The most detailed explanation of the paticcasamuppada you can read in Visuddhimagga (pdf).

Whence did you get the information, that these are only representative cause and fruits?

@zwiebel Visiddhimagga, I have linked pdf in the answer.

I guessed so far. Can you give page and paragraph number?

Just open pdf and search for: representative. Thanks for the edit.

note, btw, that the quote "yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā idappaccayatā" is from the canon, to be found at SN XII.20.5

According to Theravada, the actual conditionality is more complicated even than is explained by PS. For a true understanding of conditionality (apart from attaining Buddhahood), a study of the Mahapatthana is probably more enlightening, intellectually speaking, since it outlines 24 types of conditionality:

Hetupaccayo , ārammaṇapaccayo, adhipatipaccayo, anantarapaccayo, samanantarapaccayo, sahajātapaccayo, aññamaññapaccayo, nissayapaccayo, upanissayapaccayo, purejātapaccayo, pacchājātapaccayo, āsevanapaccayo, kammapaccayo, vipākapaccayo, āhārapaccayo, indriyapaccayo, jhānapaccayo, maggapaccayo, sampayuttapaccayo, vippayuttapaccayo, atthipaccayo, natthipaccayo, vigatapaccayo, avigatapaccayoti.

Reading the Paccayaniddeso, it seems clear that the type of conditionality depends on the link in question. For example,

rūpāyatanaṃ cakkhuviññāṇadhātuyā taṃsampayuttakānañca dhammānaṃ ārammaṇapaccayena paccayo.

Basically, forms share conditionality with the eye by virtue of being their object, etc.
I'm not an expert in Theravada Abhidhamma by any means, but it certainly doesn't seem like one can give a categorical answer or take PS as a strictly literal chain of linear causation; it seems much more an exegetical teaching meant to summarize the nature of samsara. In Theravada it is further complicated by the idea of relating to three lives. Read the article by P.A. Payutta for explanation of that concept (and for more insight into PS in general):
http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/B%20-%20Theravada/Teachers/Ven%20Payutto/Dependent%20Origination/Dependent%20Origination%20The%20Buddhist%20Law%20of%20Conditionality.htm
EDIT: Here's a source that compares PS and Patthana:
http://stylomilo.com/files/mv/YMBADip/Abhi/Patthana%20naya%20-%20LTY.pdf
It points out the difference in style between PS and Patthana; as I said, PS is conventional and Patthana is dealing with ultimate realities. It also states that Patthana:

examines in greater detail cause and effect, as PS does not explain how
  the cause becomes the effect, or the relationships between cause and
  effect. For example, no single cause can produce an effect and a cause
  does not produce only a single effect. Therefore, it is a collection of
  causes which produces a collection of effects. PS looks at the chief causeand the prominent effect only

Seems like the article is worth reading, but I just found it on Google, so no assurances :)

Thanissaro wrote a short book on the subject, and he makes it out to be quite complex but very clear at the same time. This book was an important reference on a paper I wrote for an Asian Philosophy class: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/index.html#shapeofsuffering

The conditional relation of the links of dependent origination are necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions. This is clear when we compare the links in dependent origination with other teachings. For example, according to the twelve links, the sixfold sense-base is a condition for the arising of contact. But in many places in the Suttas it is taught that:

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.
  The meeting of the three is contact. (Similarly with the other senses)

which indicates that the sense base isn't sufficient because contact also depends on an object and on the arising of consciousness.
Also I don't see how

When that is, this is, through arising of that, this arises; when that
  is not, this is not, with cessation of that, this ceases.

Implies biconditionality. It sounds like straightforward necessary causation to me.

As I see it some of the links are bidirectional while some links like between sensations and craving (the place you can break the cycle) unidirectional.
If craving there should be sensations but in a liberated person thought he experiences sensations there is no craving.

The Pratītyasamutpāda theory can be applied for different conceptual levels of life. The relation of the chain also differ accordingly.
Life can be defined as

a physical process.
a mental process.
a hybrid of both above.
a conceptual phenomenon.
a combination of all these.
as three life -- past, present and future.
a moment of thought. Etc.

The original meaning is not as sufficient, necessary, or bi conditions.
Pratītyasamutpāda is  ‘THE RELATION’  that lord Buddha use to explain the worldly phenomena.

You're welcome. Is there anything you can add especially to the first two parts (i.e. the parts which answer the question, not the comments on other people's answers)? For example you said, Life can be defined as 1. a physical process. 2. a mental process. 3. a hybrid of both etc. What is your reason for saying that: is that a quote from somewhere, and if so then from where? And in the second part, you quote yasmin sathi idam hothi: where is that from, and would you add a translation?

I didn't understand the word "pasting" when you wrote, ...not eating (pasting) both physical and mental foods. Can you clarify that word? Also, you wrote not eating: but maybe "not eating (at all)" is too extreme, see for example Apocarteresis in Buddhism.

Your comment on catpnosis' answer was that there are 12 links, because it's like a circle with the last linked to the first etc. In the next sentence (Pratītyasamutpāda explain if avidya etc.) you start to talk about the four noble truths. Should that next sentence be a new paragraph: i.e. is it unrelated to the previous sentence, or if it is related what's the connection between that sentence and the previous one (or between that sentence and catpnosis' answer?

Yes, there is a mistake, it should be "imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati; imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati" as in the question.

Ahara sutta -( SN 1.2.1 ) state 4 type of foods relate to samsara.

@ChrisW It is the relation between Pratītyasamutpāda and Four Noble truth.

Pasting is fasting, defer is differ


text:
Where is the Buddha originally quoted as saying "On heaven and earth, I alone am honored"?
In Chinese and especially Japanese Buddhism, the statement 天上天下唯我独尊 (Japanese tenjou tenge yui ga dokuson; not sure about the Chinese transliteration), which is typically translated as "On heaven and earth, I alone am honored", is considered to be a well-known statement of the Buddha, spoken when the Buddha first emerged from his mother's womb. The quote is sometimes truncated to just the latter half 唯我独尊 "I alone am honored".
I have done a fair bit of searching for a Sanskrit/Prakrit source from which this quote could have been translated into Chinese, but have had no success so far. What text serves as the origin of this quotation? Did it only first appear after the spread of Buddhism into China?

That means every being is honored because every being has the Buddha Nature.

The Pali version isn't quite as strong. According to Malalasekera:

Immediately after birth the Bodhisatta stands firmly on his feet, and having taken seven strides to the north, while a white canopy, is held over his head, looks round and utters in fearless voice the lion's roar: "Aggo 'ham asmi lokassa, jettho 'ham asmi lokassa, settho 'ham asmi lokassa, ayam antimā jāti, natthi dāni punabbhavo” (D.ii.15).
http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/b/buddha.htm

The meaning of the phrase is "I am the highest in this world; I am foremost in this world; I am the best in this world; this is the last birth; there is no further becoming here."
Nothing I've found specifying heaven and earth; it also doesn't seem proper for the Bodhisatta to have said "I alone am honoured", since it is patently untrue.

One Japanese source says that according to the Dirgha Agama, the Buddha pointed to the heavens and then to the earth before saying this quote. Perhaps that is the origin of this difference - the Agamas only seem to be preserved in Chinese, so I guess this could be a variation on the story of the Buddha's birth that was not preserved in any of the Pali/Sanskrit texts.


text:
Do you have to follow a monastic lifestyle to attain enlightenment?
How do the different groups/sects of Buddhism view attaining enlightenment and living a common life? In other words, do they think it is possible to be a common person and achieve enlightenment? Even for someone who has a family, friends and coworkers that aren't Buddhists?

What if you stay at home most of the time. Just work and come home and don't associate with anyone. isn't that a monk?

Do you have to follow a monastic lifestyle to attain enlightenment? At first approximation, the answer is: yes in Theravada, no in Mahayana.
Since probably as early as Milindapanha (~100 BCE) and most certainly by the time of Vissudhimagga (~430CE), the orthodox (~Theravada) position was, you must be a monk to attain Nirvana.
But since you asked about Enlightenment, I should point out that Enlightenment is the goal of Mahayana, while in Theravada, the final goal is usually called Nirvana (Nibbana in Pali), not Enlightenment (Bodhi in Pali). In Mahayana, Enlightenment can be attained by a layperson.
These are "official" positions (as much as we can talk about official positions in such a heterogeneous conglomerate of teachings as Buddhism). Informally, in my own understanding, what some Mahayana schools call "Enlightenment" is what Theravada schools call mere "stream-entry". Other Mahayana schools however have this notion of multiple levels (bhumi), in which what Theravada calls "stream-entry" is level 1 of 10, with Final Enlightenment counted as 11th. It kinda gets complicated from "stream-entry" onward, because the boundaries of "self" no longer apply, so it is difficult to talk about Enlightenment with no subject to tie it to.
Anyway, from practical perspective, the point is, it is extremely difficult to make any meaningful progress towards Enlightenment/Nirvana if most of your focus is on pursuing material ends (success, wealth, entertainment, helping your relatives achieve the same). In order to get pretty close to X while leading a semi-normal life, one's top priority must be spiritual practice, followed by family and everything else. This basically means, squeezing study of Buddhist philosophy here and there, making meditation part of your daily routine, and, most importantly, deliberately utilizing your family & work situations as shootingrange for Dharma practice.

I don't agree that the orthodox Theravada position was you must be a monk to attain Nirvana. Any sources?

Here is the quote from Milindapanha: Whosoever has attained, as a layman, to Arahatship, one of two conditions are possible to him, and no other — either that very day he enters the Order, or he dies away, for beyond that day he cannot last. -- although this formulation is by the king, not Nagasena. Nagasena does confirm this though, explaining that a householder is too weak to retain Arahatship: "a tiny blade of grass when a heavy rock is placed upon it will, through its weakness, break off and give way". I am not in favor of this position, but I believe it's been orthodox for a while now

The quote from the Miln only says that a lay arahant either ordains or passes away; it doesn't say a lay person can't attain enlightenment.

Here is another quote for you (MN 71.11) “there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of suffering.” -- this is said to support the traditional position.

AN 119–139 gives a list of householder who have attained Awakening. And that is right "without abandoning the fetter of householdership" but that does not mean that one can not abandon the only when living as a monk. There is also a sutta that explains what homeless means and speaking of the sense doors. Its common in Therevada countries to say so, it would be not possible, but that is an result of being actually more honest, that sensuality is a hindrance which one does not easy overcome, see MN14, a hh request, Mr Andrei. You have to live like a monk holds, you have the "be" a monk does'nt

Very good @SamanaJohann - this is why I always say there is Mahayana in Theravada and "hinayana" in Mahayana.

To my understanding, your analysis is incorrect; what I believe Mahayana calls Enlightenment is 1st Bhumi, which is a Bodhisattva position. Can't recall the sutra that states this (I think it was the Lotus sutra), but what I learned is that a 4th stage Arhat (attained Theravada's Nirvana) cannot even fathom the state of a 1st stage Bodhisattva.

MN 73 Maha Vacchagotta Sutta- Many, many people including lay people attained Nibbana at time of the Buddha!

@avatar I think the sutta speaks about non-returners who abandoned five lower fetters, no?

more than four or five hundred who have become arahants...with the destruction of the five lower fetters...

@AndreiVolkov do you have any references for Mahayana enlightenment per your answer, "In Mahayana, Enlightenment can be attained by a layperson."? Thank you.

I'm sorry but your sources are incorrect. Five lower fetters is a non-returner, Arahant is ten. The sutta speaks about non-returners.

Regarding Mahayana Enlightenment for householders, it is very common. For example Vimalakirti (the central figure of Vimalakirti Sutra) was "liberated through the transcendence of wisdom" (enlightened), see http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln260/Vimalakirti.htm

"Many realized masters and practitioners of the Dzogchen lineages were laypeople, both men and woman. Many have attained liberation from suffering through engaging wholeheartedly in the teachings of the Dzogchen lineages in the Bön and other Tibetan Buddhist schools."

Sure. I mean, that's not a primary source, his word is as good as mine, but ok yes.

One might ask, why would anyone who sincerely aspires towards liberation still need to live the lay life? Some answers may be: to better understand suffering outside the seclusion of monastic life, or because monastic life isn't an option (geographically). As I understand it, the Buddha's journey required a fair amount of exposure to suffering before he discovered letting go.

Enlightenment is entirely mental; it can be achieved any where, at any time, and under any circumstance with the right emotional commitment. A monastic lifestyle only has to be followed on the emotional level; you can have vast amounts of material wealth if it does not corrupt your mind by creating any forms of obsession over that wealth.

From Anapanasati Sutta:

Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination.

Here Buddha says mindfulness alone and the affects it arouses are enough for enlightenment.

My understanding of Buddhism is that you can attain enlightenment provided you devote yourself to the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path.  I have met enlightened people from time to time and not all of them were monastics.
If you're new to Buddhism and the above concepts are unfamilar to you, there are some concise summaries of basic concepts at What should everyone know about Buddhism.

How did you recognise enlightened people?

This question has been answered in another thread. Is it possible to recognize a person who has achieved Arhatship?

The question is who will get enlightened, the body or the mind? The answer is obvious, the mind. So when it is only the mind that gets enlightened all the external things are just auxiliary. So the answer to your question is both yes and no.
YES
Actions directly affect the mind. So by following a monastic life your actions will be limited to only those set of activities that help in controlling the mind and getting enlightened. Enlightenment will be quicker and easier because you will have to involve less in material activities.
NO
Because mind is what matters, if you can keep an ascetic attitude and mentality even when living a material life, you can certainly attain enlightenment. But it will be difficult to maintain a balanced mindset for a beginner this way because material actions will always be affecting his mind. So if mind can not be controlled while living in samsara then a monastic life should be preferred, otherwise it's not mandatory.
For an enlightened person it doesn't matter whether he lives in a monastery or in samsara as his mind becomes equipoised. But until that state of mind is achieved a monastic life should be preferred.

There is a lesser-known, non-monastic tradition in Tibetan Buddhism: a Ngagpa may marry and have children.

Much information is covered in the other answers, hence a small clarification of what is generally belief in Sri Lanka.
You can become Enlightened while a house holder but you have to ordinate before 7 days after becoming enlightened.

I believe this is in a sutra (can't recall which one), which says that even if you get enlightened as a layperson, in 7 days you will want to become a monk/nun by yourself. Not sure, though

You may get a understanding, of what's the matter with when reading Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta: The Lesser Mass of Stress for example and to know of what the Buddha had to say. Yes, right livelihood (livestyle), one of the factor of the Noble Eightfold path is necessary.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of trade and keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


text:
If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?
Anatta is often described as "not-self" which I understand to mean that our identities are illusions.  But it's also described as "soullessness" which I think implies that there is no mind other than the brain itself.
But many Buddhists believe in rebirth.  If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?

Thank you all for the considered and learned answers. I shall study the texts in question. However, I am a simple man. Is there a simple answer to my question? Thanks and best wishes.

see https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/rebirth-debate/
"His main concern, however, was not whether there is or is not life after death, but whether it is possible to live in such a way that one could transcend the dilemma of suffering."

I've read of rebirth as the transmission of 'impressions'. I like this way of describing it. It suggest a medium for transmission but not a 'thing' that is transmitted.

The absence of a soul is not declared by Buddha. In MN 63, Buddha himself has said, "And what is undeclared by me?..The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another' is undeclared by me.

When most people think of "self" they think of some abstract core that is the subject of all experience and the agent of all actions. Buddha taught (and modern cognitive science tends to agree) that upon careful examination there is no such single core. Instead experiences result from interactions of multiple perceptory functions. Similarly, our actions are performed by a conglomerate of functions, without a single agent responsible for all choices.
When the notion of individual rebirth exists as an unexamined belief, it depends on this unexamined notion of "self" as its necessary foundation. Once practitioner is free from illusion of self (in practice, not just conceptually), the notion of individual birth/death/rebirth no longer applies. From this perspective, rebirth is a byproduct of attachment to a (substantial) self.
But because karma at large still continues to function, the infinitely forking/joining threads of causation that once were the subject of attachment continue to participate in activity and serve as causes for subsequent effects. In this sense, rebirth as principle goes on continuously whether we posit an individual or not.
To give this a more practical spin, instead of worrying about rebirth, we practitioners should focus on working towards deconstruction of self by reducing the strength of the illusion through practice of altruism and non-attachment, first and foremost at the microscopic level of thought-to-thought intention and reaction.

n.. Once practitioner is free from illusion of self (in practice, not just conceptually), the notion of individual birth/death/rebirth no longer applies. From this perspective, rebirth is a byproduct of attachment to a (substantial) self. Influenced me.

So if I understand you correctly, there is no such thing as rebirth of self or rebirth of the individual, just ongoing causation.  Is this an accepted position among practitioners?

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, when asked what is it that gets reincarnated said "neurosis". He was joking of course, but seriously, it is nothing else but Karma or we could say information. You can ask around but yes, I believe this is a common understanding among advanced practitioners

@AndreiVolkov In my reasoning, the following sentence strengthens the independent existence of a self: working towards deconstruction of self. It implies the deconstructed self is there the moment you are not working on its deconstruction, which is not true. There is no self to begin with, hence there is nothing to deconstruct. It is rather learning to see that you are constructing it, and when fully seen that you are, it is simply a matter of not having to put it together anymore, as reality is easier worked with without that delusional mental construct.

I agree with many of your assertions here, but I still hold that illusion does not have to be reality in order to be functional and require deconstruction.

I understood it the same way, but then what past lives have Buddha been talking about? How could he get access to memories of past lives, if there are no past lives, that could be considered "his"? And what are teachers talking about when they say that "you" might be able to achieve nirvana in the next lives, if not this one? Those will not be your lives anymore. Either you liberate yourself in this life, or generate further suffering for next lives, which will have to try to liberate themselves from in their life.

Buddha talks about "spirit" in Pali Canon. Spirit is soul without body. See Ratana sutta, Aja Sutta, (in many more Suttas, also in Jataka tales). Search word "spirit" in accesstoinsight. End of topic.

Anatta is often described as "not-self" which I understand to mean that our identities are illusions.

No, in fact, the meaning of not-self, as others have pointed out, is that the object in question is not self :) The Visuddhimagga offers some good explanations:

All that [materiality] is “not-self in the sense of
  having no core.” In the sense of having no core because of the absence of any core of self conceived as a self, an abider, a doer, an experiencer, one who is his own master; for what is impermanent is painful (S III 82), and it is impossible to escape the impermanence, or the rise and fall and oppression, of self, so how could it have the state of a doer, and so on? Hence it is said, “Bhikkhus, were materiality self, it would not lead to affliction” (S III 66), and so on. So this is also not-self in the sense of having no core. Accordingly, there is one kind of comprehension in this way too, but it is effected in eleven ways. [611] The same method applies to feeling, and so on.

and

There are twenty-five kinds of contemplation of not-self by taking the following five in the case of each aggregate: as alien, as empty, as vain, as void, as not-self.

You say:

But it's also described as "soullessness" which I think implies that there is no mind other than the brain itself.

Absolutely not! The five aggregates are non-self, four of which are outside of the domain of the brain.

If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?

There isn't in fact any such thing as rebirth, in ultimate reality. Nothing is truly reborn, ever. Every experience that is made up of the five aggregates arises and ceases without remainder. That is true death. Rebirth is a concept used to describe the change between one artificial framework of experiences (e.g. a human life) to another. The ultimate reality is that the mind simply arises and ceases at the last moment of life and then a new mind arises at the first moment of rebirth based on the last one, very similar to as has been occurring throughout one's life, except this time there is no old physical phenomena for it to be based on, so it is based solely on one's final state of mind in the last life.
Here's something that might help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XClIR19eufc

+1 Excellent elucidation! I have a query here though: "Nothing is truly reborn, ever. Every experience that is made up of the five aggregates arises and ceases without remainder.": If that is the case, then how can one remember the past lives (Buddha did as mentioned in the sutras and Jataka tales)? The fact that he remembered clearly demonstrates a link between this and past life. If there is no self, then what is that link?

@PrahladYeri Think of it as a mango tree retaining the qualities of the mother tree without retaining any cell of the mother tree.

The principle of not-self is not saying "No self", it's saying a specific kind of thing:

"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
etc.

From Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
Upon the greater question of "does some kind of self other than the aggregates exist", the Buddha refused to answer:

"Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, 'Come, Malunkyaputta, live the holy life under me,
and I will declare to you that...
'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,'...
"No, lord."
"And did you ever say to me, 'Lord, I will live the holy life under the Blessed One
and [in return] he will declare to me that...
'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,'...
"No, lord."
...
"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared,
and what is declared by me as declared.
And what is undeclared by me?...
'The soul is one thing and the body another'

From Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya
He says "when there is the view, 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now."

The answer might be in: "Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form..." - Think of it.
Maha-nidana Sutta DN 15

First, you need to understand that Buddhist texts operate on two levels of description: the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. The contradiction disappears when you realise that anatta (the non-existence of self) is an ultimate truth, while the rebirth is a conventional truth.
In other words, Buddhists believe that people linked by a chain of rebirths may be said to be "the same", by the same convention as when a 40-year-old person is said to be "the same" as an 20-years-old person he evolved from. This convention has nothing to do with the fact that there is no indivisible and constant "I", and that the aggregates that make up the conventional "I" are in constant flux.

This analogy (your second paragraph) made the most sense to me. Thank you.

The "answer" seems to be more like a glass of water being taken from a river and then being  poured back into the river. Can the exact same glass of water ever be drawn from that river? Possibly, but extremely improbable, but another glass of water may be drawn from the river, a river that has been influenced by the actions of the first glass of water. Analogies never take in all angles but I like this one.

This is my favorite analogy overall. Others have used it also. I have read that the Buddha said, "Tendencies persist, but not a self" but I cannot find it on the web to provide a link. Perhaps someone else knows how to locate it.

A new analogy for me, and I love it! Thank you!

This is a question of kings! Many many years ago, a king asked the same question of a monk. Here is the dialogue from Sutta Central

The king said: ‘Where there is no transmigration, Nāgasena, can there be rebirth?’
‘Yes, there can.’
‘But how can that be? Give me an illustration.’
‘Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp from another lamp, can it be said that the one transmigrates from, or to, the other?’
‘Certainly not.’
‘Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.’
‘Give me a further illustration.’
‘Do you recollect, great king, having learnt, when you were a boy, some verse or other from your teacher?’
‘Yes, I recollect that.’
‘Well then, did that verse transmigrate from your teacher?’
‘Certainly not.’
‘Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.’
‘Very good, Nāgasena!’

Those are metaphors, but what actually passes from life to life? Habits! All we have to do is break the habit of wrong desire. Here is another reference: sutta central where habits of wrong desire are compared to feeding the oil-lamp.

In original Pali Buddhism, there are two levels of teaching: (i) mundane, for the purpose of nurturing morality; and (ii) supramundane, for the purpose of enlightenment (MN 117; MN 60). The teachings that imply 'rebirth' are mundane & the teachings that explain 'anatta' are supramundane. If we carefully read the many Pali suttas, we will not find 'rebirth' & 'anatta' in the same sutta. They are two distinct topics for two distinct audiences.
For example, MN 60 states the view of 'self' or 'existence' is right view for householders but SN 12.15 states the view of 'self' or 'existence' is not right view.
The word 'birth' ('jati') refers to the birth of the idea of 'self-identity' ('sakkaya' - MN 44) or 'persons/beings' ('satta' - SN 12.2; SN 23.2; SN 5.10; SN 22.81). Minds that are not enlightened are subject to 'rebirth' of the deluded 'self-view' each time they cling to an act of karma. Minds that are enlightened have ended 'birth' & have ended clinging karma (AN 6.63).
Because the old Pali suttas do not mention anything that is 'reborn' from life to life, the later Buddhists were required to invent what they call 'relinking consciousness', 'storehouse consciousness', 'stream of consciousness', etc, which are ideas the original suttas did not teach. The original suttas only state consciousness is the six-fold cognition (MN 43) and there can be no arising of consciousness without sense organs (MN 38) and aggregates (SN 22.53; SN 12.67).

There is no rebirth / reincarnation (in the sense that the soul takes on a new body after the death of the previous body. )
Our existence is changing process in which there are events like birth and death. In the absence of a unchanging everlasting core the person who is born is not the same as the person who died nor is he a deferent person but but just the continuation of the process of existence.
In Buddhism what is there is Jati /  birth and death as events in the process keeping us in the cycle of Samsara.
There is no continuity of the person (or some core identity / entity) but there is a continuation of the process.

Only "eternal, unchangeable, and happy" Soul (which is called atman) is denied in Buddhism. And such monistic Soul is not required for re-birth to function. When being disintegrate it is causally condition birth of new being. Thus, even though there is no constant Soul, two beings are related to each other causally by means of karma. So, instead of Soul (and re-incarnation) we have Karma (and re-birth).

The Pali word 'atta' is generally translated as 'self, body, person, individuality; life, mind-soul.' As the PED makes clear, the Buddha is alluding to a very specific concept - the Upanishadic idea of a substantial being that inhabits the heart that is reborn from life to life and is inherently permanent, self-identical, and blissful. The Buddha points out that no amount of observation can confirm the existence of such a being. Instead, he posits a continuity of moments, each moment infintesimal and non-substantial, which he calls the 'santana,' generally translated as 'continuity, succession,' often referred to as the 'mind-stream.' The difference between the 'atta' and the 'santana' is that the former is substantial and static, whereas the latter is non-substantial and dynamic. The 'santana' manifests in samsara as a consecution of states resulting from unfruited karma, which in turn arises because of objectification due to ignorance (avijja). However, when all karmas are eliminated there is "that which remains," which continues to be non-substantial and dynamic. This is the Deathless (amara, same root as amrita). The Buddha clearly rejected nihilism, he refers often to the attainment of immortality and refers to the "self" as frequently as he denies its existence. The notion that the Buddha denied the existence of a self in any sense is naive, and is easily disproved. When the Buddha attained Enlightenment, only the Buddha became enlightened, nor did the Buddha himself disappear. This proves the existence of the individuality, the essence of which is intention (cetana), the primary characteristic of which is 'not-knowing' (avijja). This is a primary aspect of reality itself, one polarity of the transdual absolute of which the opposite polarity is emptiness or void (shunyata). What the Buddha rejected is the doctrine of a being inhabiting the heart with the characteristics described. In other words, he is opposing the objectification of the santana as a static object. It is the process view of reality (cf. Whitehead's Process and Reality). Esoterically, we may say that the ATTA is the A-TA, the "not-that." See also the Dalai Lama, Buddha Nature.

When I first read this, I liked what it said, but then I wasn't sure sure how/whether it answered the OP's question. I.e., I can see you address the "no soul" part of the question, but what about "rebirth"? I suppose there's connection between "rebirth" and santana, if so could you perhaps try to clarify that slightly or be just a little more explicit about it? Thanks.

Rebirth is not the rebirth of a thing, but a continuity of karmic causes and effects.

Think of exchanging the terms.  If there is no rebirth how can there be a soul.  Attachment will be there both ways.  Why must one condition rely on another.  Why must a soul be present for a rebirth ?  Why must there be a rebirth to validate a soul.  Soul is a category based on a disposition masking itself as a representation.  You are not a soul.  You are not a rebirth.  You are not a name.  You are not a species.  You are not a category.  You are not a self.  You are not a hope to be.  You are not a never was.  You are a system of directed energies subjected to and affected by other directed energies.  All religions and convictions are merely reminders and reinforcers of how we are to be.  Like signs on the road.  How do you direct your energy ?  Will believing you have a soul help you in redirecting your energy ?  I do not know this .

If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?

I think this is a very important question and one which really gets to the heart of a big misconception about emptiness or the selflessness of persons.
To my mind, the best way to see the hidden assumption in the question above is to ask another question: why invoke rebirth?
How about this alternate question: If there is no soul, how can there be a person who lives moment to moment?
It is clear, that all schools of Buddhism teach the selflessness of persons. This is one of the four seals of Buddhism. So, why don't we ask how can there be a person who lives moment to moment?
It's manifestly evident that people live moment to moment. With just a little bit of insight we can see that persons are impermanent. That we are  non-unitary (we have parts). That we are dependent phenomena. That right there is enough to establish the selflessness of persons at a course level and yet we still function and live moment to moment.
Rebirth is simply the continuation of this living moment to moment even after the death of the body. In other words, the question has two hidden assumptions:

That selfless things can not function
That we are thoroughly material and can be reduced (physical reductionism at work) to pure matter.

The Dharma does not contain these assumptions and there are good reasons for rejecting both.

All most all above answers are helpful in getting rid of confusions regarding rebirth. Still I will say something in this regard as I think it will be an answer in quite simple words.
I am pasting my answer to other question regarding rebirth. That question also has another link. This link will take you to the original text based on which I have tried to answer.
Hopefully that answer is suitable and in very 'easy words'. -
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1846/208

with a suggestion I have copy pasted the whole ans. -
I think rebirth is part of Buddhist doctrine. But the real question is rebirth of what? and rebirth of whom?

According to the Buddha, there are four elements of Existence which go to compose the body. They are (1) Prithvi; (2) Apa; (3) Tej; and (4) Vayu. Question is, when the human body dies, what happens to these four elements? Do they also die along with dead body? According to The Buddha they join the mass of similar elements floating in (Akash) space. When the four elements from this floating mass join together, a new birth takes place. This is what the Buddha meant by rebirth, as I have understood it. It must be noted that the body dies. But the elements are ever-living. This is the kind of rebirth in which the Buddha believed. Great light is thrown upon the subject by Sariputta in his dialogue with Maha-Kotthita. The Buddha was not an absolute annihilationist. He was an annihilationist so far as soul was concerned. He was not an annihilationist so far as matter was concerned. (I think Andrei Volkov is also saying the same point when he is talking about "complete annihilation).
There is another concern here. It is about rebirth of Whom? Does the same dead person take a new birth? Did the Buddha believe in this thesis? The answer is, "Most improbable." The answer depends upon the elements of existence of the dead man meeting together and forming a new body; then the possibility of the rebirth of the same sentient being is possible. If a new body is formed after a mixture or the different elements of the different men who are dead, then there is rebirth but not the rebirth of the same sentient being. This point has been well explained by sister Khema to King Pasenadi. Where she ends up saying 'The Tathagata exists after death...exists not after death', does not apply." (Again we can match Jayantha's write up regarding Kalama Sutta.) I have drawn lot from The Buddha and His Dhamma Book 4, Part 2, section 1, sub section 2.  Hoping for further discussion.

Seed has a tendency to produce a life again. So seed contain the complex that creates new life. But when the same seed has been burnt and popped, will it return to seed again and create anew? No.
So whatever there is the condition to reappear, has the tendency of  cessation. Like popping corn.
Hence if you take seed as your self, creation continues. If you burn that seed and make into pop corn, will you still think you have soul? No.
Hence all things are impermanent, interdependent, cause of one another and no self!
Hope you will burn that seed!

I am not a Buddhist, but in reading "the Essence of Buddhism" by P. Lakshmi Nasaru, what strikes me is how the Buddha wants his followers not to accept blindly anything, but to question everything and come to realize their own conclusions. Independent thought and deep inquiry in oneself, seems to be the way of progress, not acceptance of authority. Perhaps this is the final test: after purifying consciousness through all the practices, over a long time, you finally realize you ARE an eternal soul, and then as a result, in the end, you must give up attachment to the Buddhist doctrine. Tricky, this Buddha.

There's a description of the phrase, "not me, not mine, not myself" (or "this body is not mine; this am I not; this is not my soul") which says, "With craving (tanhā) one erroneously thinks – This is mine. With pride (māna)
one thinks – This am I. With false view one thinks – This is my soul. These are
the three misconceptions (maññanā)."

@User. Actually by following the noble eightfold path you come to realize Anatta, i.e. that there is no permanent or lasting self, no experiencing or enduring entity, no inner-core.

You ARE means I AM. This is what everyone's view. No need any practice for this belief. those who have mind automatically do this. Only humans can think other way. Is the first cell is yourself.? what happen it when you Die? What are the attributes of Soul?

It's like saying there is not-self or soul so consciousness cant move forward. Consciousness throughout life,  throughout Samsara, is always dying in every fraction of a second then arising again in the next.  When consciousness arises again that is a rebirth.
Why do we assume that conciousness won't continue after physical death? Mindfulness meditation challenges those kinds of assumptions.

If there is no rebirth how will you come back to find out???
Your understanding of “soullessness” needs attention.
This is wrongview of annatta i guess

This is an excellent question. Karma is well accepted in Buddhism, but not the existence of the soul. This inconsistency raises the question of remnant reaction. Consider the following argument.
From the system of karma we know that a person who does the action will be the same person who will experience the reaction, not any one else. Suppose a person dies, then what will happen to the inexperienced remnant reactions? It can't just go away, can it? No, and we know from system of karma that the same person will born again to experience the pending reactions. So here is the question, what is common in both the persons that you say the new born one is the rebirth of the old deceased one? If the two persons are identical then there has to be something common in them, isn't it? So what is that fundamental unit that is common to both? It can't be the body, nor can it be the mind (as memory, tendencies, qualities, etc. are different). So what is the common element? The answer is soul. I have to keep it brief so can not go elaborate more but the short answer is soul exists.
Why did not Buddha acknowledge the existence of soul?
The mission and objective of Buddha was to ward of suffering of the people which is primarily caused by attachment. So He didn't acknowledge the existence of soul. But just because He didn't acknowledge its existence, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. He didn't acknowledge the existence of soul because it will create attachment to an eternal self. And where there is attachment suffering will undoubtedly follow. During His time in India people were doing Vedic sacrifices, yanjya, rituals, etc. to place there self in heaven etc. As they believed in the eternal soul, they were attached to it and hence putting effort to place it in heaven and higher realms by animal sacrifices in yanjya and rituals. So He didn't acknowledge the existence of soul to free followers from attachment towards an eternal self.
However, if you go into more deep then you will find that the soul exists in such a way that its existence can be safely overlooked. So even if you deny the existence of the individual soul you will not be completely wrong.

Well, one constraint of SE sites is that we can't have an argument here and this really is an argumentative question. I know my answer is unacceptable by Buddhist followers, but I don't mean to say that Buddhist view regarding no soul is wrong. Hence, you are welcome to down vote the answer but think without any bias on my argument and at least leave a reason.

I will be putting a link in my answer. Plz do read it. there is no contradiction in denying separate existence to soul and at the same time professing concept of rebirth. The reading will be helpful to elaborate my point. Plz do read and comment. I also think that @ catpnosis answer also throws some light on it. But it is too short.

"But just because He didn't acknowledge its existence, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist"- Wrong, Buddha clearly said that a soul doesn't exist. What exists is only cause and effect which is explained in'dependent origination'.

In the Ananda Sutta, the Buddha states that there is no self - "If I ... were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?". And in the Acela Sutta, the Buddha responds to your points. Please see this answer for elaboration.