text:
Barriers to Compassion
I think most would say that anger and prejudice are the main obstacles to compassion, but I'm wondering on the topic of sympathetic joy. If everything is empty, and suffering, and impermanent, how can we be happy for the joys of others which are empty, and ultimately suffering? I feel like being happy for a joy which is in fact suffering is like being glad someone took poison. I would like to develop compassion for other's joys--the real joys that will further their lives--but I find most of the things people are satisfied by detrimental things. Any thoughts?
EDIT: Also, I wonder how, since everything is intrinsically empty, one can truly be happy for events occurring to someone else since they have no absolute effects. This would imply one would have to be happy for the happy emotions others have in themselves rather than what occurs, but once again, but Buddha explained these as suffering, even the most blissful states.

The main topic of the question is "sympathetic joy", isn't it: not "compassion".

May I know what you think about this "everything is empty"?. How would you define "Emptiness". If I agree with how you would see Sunnata (Emptiness) only will I be able to answer your OP.

With practice, you can be content by reflecting on the good karma of others rather than joy or happiness. It is very close, if not the same, to praise. For example, if someone you're showing compassion to is now able to feel happy, then you can think "Now this person has the opportunity to practice dhamma since his problems are lesser. This is good". Maybe you can go further and help the person practice dhamma even for a second. This way, you don't cultivate thoughts that nurture attachment, nor do you appreciate any wrong joy or happiness in the other person you helped (such as thanha).

First of all you are veering dangerously to nihilism (annihilism). Seeing things as empty impermanent, not self and suffering is to allow us to detached ourselves to pleasures (including the pleasures of the bliss of Jhana). It doesn't mean that everything is meaningless or there are no consequences to our actions.
Emptiness in particularly used by Mahayana to mean that things are ultimately dependent originated. Things happen due to causes and conditions. It does not mean that it's all meaningless and does not matter. This is use to break your attachments to things you cling to as permanent. We should definitely not take this to mean that all actions are meaningless. If we do so we would quickly enter a deluded mindset.
Secondly Mutida or sympathetic joy is the antidote to jealousy and judgement. When we see someone who is better off than we are, we have a tendency to become jealous. Especially we have judged that person as being unworthy of happiness. On the other hand, if we feel they are worse off than we are, we might start to develop conceit, or even pity, and we become unable to rejoice in their good fortune. You can be happy for the limited happiness that they may have, whatever it maybe.
I want to further add that there is one powerful use of sympathetic joy, the joy of rejoicing in the merits of others, that is in their goodness. When we see others doing good things or making progress in the path, it is worth rejoicing, and in fact further aid and reinforce your own cultivation. Commonly you will see Buddhists exclaim 'Sadhu!' - meaning good or well said after seeing good deeds.

What is subjected to 3 characteristics:

what is conditioned - Dhammapada Verses 277, 278 and 279
each link of Dependent Arising - (Jāti) Paccaya Sutta
5 argerates - Anatta Lakkhana Sutta, (Khandha) Sīla,vanta Sutta
6 sense bases, their respective objects and experiences - Pubba Sambodha Sutta 1 (Ajjhatta), Pubba Sambodha Sutta 2 (Bahiddha)

Generally you should try to understand the 3 Characteristics based on one of the above frameworks. Also the 3 Characteristics are not the end it self but means to an end, viz., because of impermanence, things are unsatisfactory, what is unsatisfactory should be lung to as me or mine.
The Brahmavihara also is conditioned. Therefore the result of such practice will be subjected to these characteristics, but this practice serves a different purpose. The purpose develop such qualities by breaking barriers on how you classify beings whatever the criteria. It severs a useful and benevolent purpose, hence is it not an empty practice.
Also the Equanimity is one of the Brahmavihara. Even when you wish someone well and it does not materialise be equanimous.

I think the main topic of the question is "sympathetic joy", not "compassion".

Muditā is translated for example here as:

muditā: altruistic or sympathetic joy, consisting of rejoicing at others' success and good fortune.

Wikipedia defines it here  but without first-hand reference to scripture.

In the suttas which describe the four Brahmavaharas it's defined as "devoid of ill-will".

He dwells pervading one direction with a citta imbued with muditā, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; so above, below, transversely, everywhere and in every respect, he dwells pervading the entire world with a citta imbued with muditā, abundant, extensive, boundless, devoid of hostility, devoid of ill-will.

There's a long definition of the Brahmaviharas in Chapter IX of the Visuddhimagga:

Starting with loving-kindness, even towards a hostile person
Then (about 17 pages later) about developing compassion, even towards a robber about to be executed (but if you feel too hostile for compassion, try loving-kindness as previously described)
Then try to develop gladness (mudita), for which the advice is as follows:

Fourthly, equanimity.

From that I take it that it's a sympathetic joy: if you "feel" compassionate when someone else is sad, sympathetic joy is what you feel when, because, taking your cue from someone else being happy.
Another explanation is that the purpose of the practice is to make you devoid of hostility: devoid of jealousy, for example (e.g. "I'm happy for his success" rather than "I'm envious of his success").
Dhammadhatu's answer might be right as well. For example, some people might feel glad because of good or skillful actions. If you feel their gladness then you too are made glad as a result of good or skillful actions.

The Three Characteristics are teachings or vipassana objects for enlightenment.
The four Brahma Vihara are social attitudes rather than teachings for enlightenment.
Compassion is the wish for others to be free from suffering, including the wish that evil doers be free from the suffering that pushes them to do evil deeds.
Sympathetic joy is rejoicing in or appreciating the good actions of others, such as if a person saves the life of another person. Sympathetic joy is not something practised towards evil doers. Only three Brahma Vihara can be practised towards evil doers.
The noble path has three trainings therefore Brahma Vihara is part of the training in Right Thought & Right Conduct towards others, which is based in conventional reality rather than the ultimate reality of Emptiness.
A Buddha is perfect in both enlightened understanding & conventional behaviour.

The Four Brahma Viharas are supportive teachings for Vipassana but if someone only practices the Brahma Viharas and not at least some mindfulness too they wouldn't be understanding emptiness very deeply. You mean you can't practice sympathetic joy if the joy came from an evil act. There are no evil people just evil actions. He's The Buddha , not The Shoulda. Imo. -metta

The Four Brahma Viharas are unrelated to Vipassana; they are not a "support" for vipassana since they do not have to be practised for vipassana to occur. There are "evil doers". I did not use the word "people" in my post. Also, the Buddha was one of the biggest "shouldas" in history. Please try to make useful comments rather than feel sorry for evil doers (since they go to hell based on their own volition, as the Buddha taught). Thanks

So if I understand correctly, sympathetic joy takes happiness in that people perform virtuous actions, and doesn't take joy in people's mundane happiness which will not contribute to their well being? Also,   since an evil person fails to perform such virtuous actions it is difficult to give them sympathetic joy on the basis that their behaviours are detrimental to them? Also, lastly, if a person takes joy in something detrimental to them, such as drugs or misguided sexuality, then the emotion--despite being positive--is linked with negative acts and so is not linked with sympathetic joy?

This would imply that we cannot give sympathetic joy to the majority of people I find. People do actions beneficial in their opinion, but not actually beneficial for them ultimately, in a deeper sense.

Sympathetic joy is an antidote to envy & jealousy. Thus it means to be happy for the success & good fortune of others (rather than to be envious or begruding). The saying is: "may all beings not be parted from the good fortune they have attained". Regards. As for the drug taker, yes, they may rejoice in the short term but in the long term drugs will harm them therefore, from the viewpoint of Buddhism, there is nothing to celebrate about drugs.

@Dhammadhatu Do you agree that it is best to have compassion for "evil doers"? You make it sound as if you do no evil. Maybe you are  enlightened? Either way I don't see why it's necessary to be so rude. I got thrown off this site for rudeness you know.

@Dhammadhatu Sure, you don't have to use the 4 abodes to support vipassana practice but they most certainly can support Vippasana, especially dry vipassana.

There is no such thing as "dry vipassana". Real vipassana results in the mind letting go, which results in samadhi. Samadhi develops vipassana & vipassana develops samadhi. Regards


text:
What does "intention" mean?
I see two Pali words which are translated into English as "intention":

Cetanā used in the definition of karma
Sankappa used in the definition of the Noble Eightfold Way.

Do these two words mean exactly the same thing? If not, what is the difference?

I see that already two good answers have been given, but as it is a very good question that you have asked, I feel like writing a bit on these two Pali words... Sankappa  &  Cetanā. I hope that my answer can be an incentive for you to ask such meaningful questions (as this one) in future for the benifit of all.

In Pali  “Sankappa”  means conscious thoughts that involve “san” or things that contribute to the sansaric journey (rebirth process). Here “sankalpanä” comes from “san” + “kalpana“, where “kalpanä” means conscious thoughts. In my native Sinhala language when one keeps thinking about something, these thoughts are called “sankalpanä“. Samma sankappa means removing unskillful conscious and deliberate thoughts, and cultivating skillful, moral thoughts. If one is ever mindful  of the generation of either greedy or hateful conscious thoughts, and practice this over time, then one can eventually put a stop to them. This is the basis of both Mindfulness of Breathing (Anapanasati)  and Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Sathara Satipattana) meditations.
Cetana can be translated as “intention” and as “volition”. Volition incorporates “more personal attributes”. Neither translation gives the full meaning of this Pali word, if you go into Abbidhamma. It says that many mental factors come into play for Cetana to arise.  Intention arises when a certain group of mental factors become dominant. Some mental factors are moha (ignorance), Ahirika (shamelessness),  Anottapa (fearlessness in wrong), uddhacca (restlessness or agitation), lobha, ditthi, vicikicca, etc. For instance, a person may lie to you due to greed (lobha); or it may be due to hate (dosa); the consequences are worse for the latter. Thus cetana is not “intention” per se; it depends on how that determination came about.  The Buddha said: “cetana ham Bhikkave kamman vadami“. Thus, what determines the type of kamma is the cetana. How that particular intention came about depends on the set of relevant unskillful mental factors.

It is a mistake, because there are not enough word to translate pali to english. Translation is very dangerous, be careful. I often say, and I will keep to say until we will realize how is weak, which cause of uncountable problems, of our study system when compare to the ancient study system.
I have asked  something about mind-factors similar to this question to pa-auk sayadaw, he said "you have to attain jhāna, before you can understand the answer of this question." Because the question is about mind, citta, and mind factors, citta-sampayutta, cetasika, which is easy to understand for the people who attained mind-purification, citta-visuddhi. But it is very hard to understand for people who has not enough experience in mind-developing, citta-bhāvanā, to go to the goal, mind-expert, citta-visuddhi, which can control to avoid unwholesome-citta-sampayutta and to arise wholesome-citta-sampayutta.
But if you are already attained jhāna, this is the answer:
It depend on context, mostly should describe like path of purification, which I quoteed below, but if not we can notice by each context of saṅkappa, or see in atthakathā, which always describe the weird word.
In the path of purification (I have not read the translated what I quote. I read just in pali and thai translation. Please read on your own risk):
Part 2: Concentration (Samádhi) page 136:

So far the factors abandoned by the jhána have been shown. And now, in order to show the factors associated with it, which is
  accompanied by applied and sustained thought is said. [142] Herein,
  applied thinking (vitakkana) is applied thought (vitakka); hitting
  upon, is what is meant. 25 It has the characteristic of directing the
  mind on to an object (mounting the mind on its object). Its function
  is to strike at and thresh—for the meditator is said, in virtue of it,
  to have the object struck at by applied thought, threshed by applied
  thought. It is manifested as the leading of the mind onto an object.
  Sustained thinking (vicaraóa) is sustained thought (vicára); continued
  sustainment (anusañcaraóa), is what is meant. It has the
  characteristic of continued pressure on (occupation with) the object.
  Its function is to keep conascent [mental] states [occupied] with
  that. It is manifested as keeping consciousness anchored [on that
  object].

Part 3: Understanding (Paññá) page 470:

(ii) It wills (cetayati), thus it is volition (cetaná); it collects, is the meaning. Its characteristic is the state of willing.
  Its function is to accumulate. It is manifested as coordinating. It
  accomplishes its own and others’ functions, as a senior pupil, a head
  carpenter, etc., do. But it is evident when it occurs in the
  marshalling (driving) of associated states in connection with urgent
  work, remembering, and so on. [464]

And you can see in saṅgaha also:

Vitakka -

Vi + Ö takk, to think.
It is difficult to suggest a suitable rendering for this Pāli term
  which assumes different meanings in the Suttas and Abhidhamma.
In the Sutta Pitaka it has been employed in the sense of notions,
  ideas, thoughts, reasoning etc. In the Abhidhamma it is used in a
  specific technical sense.
'Lifting' of the concomitants to the object (abhiniropana) is its
  chief characteristic. As someone ascends to the king's palace
  depending on a king's favorite, relative or friend, likewise
  consciousness ascends to the object depending on vitakka (Atthasālini,
  p. 114).
Vitakka may well be defined as the application of the concomitants on
  the object. Manasikāra, as stated above, is the directing of the
  concomitants to the object. The distinguishing characteristics of
  these two cetasikas should be clearly understood.
Different values are attached to vitakka when it is used in different
  connections.
As an ordinary particular (pakinnakā) mental state it is simply called
  vitakka. When it is developed and cultivated it becomes the foremost
  factor of the First Jhāna. Then it is termed appanā because the mind
  is steadfastly fixed on the object. The ordinary vitakka simply throws
  the mind to the surface of the object.
In the subsequent Jhānas vitakka is, however, inhibited, owing to the
  habitual association with the object.
A villager, for instance, who visits the king's palace for the first
  time, needs the introduction of a favorite courtier. For his
  subsequent visits no such introduction is necessary as he is
  acquainted with the place.
It is this developed appanā-vitakka that is known as samādhi or
  concentration.
When vitakka is present in the Supra mundane Path Consciousness
  (lokuttara magga citta) it is termed sammā sankappa (Right Thoughts)
  because it eliminates wrong thoughts and applies the mind to Nibbāna.
Vitakka is used in entirely a different sense when used in connection
  with the temperaments of individuals. Vitakka carita means one of a
  discursive temperament. (See Ch. 1. note 38.)

Vicāra -

Vi + Ö car, to wander.
Like vitakka, vicāra too is employed in a technical sense in
  Abhidhamma.
Vicāra is the continued exercise of the mind on the object.
Examination (anumajjana) is its chief characteristic.
So far the renderings for vitakka and vicāra are initial and sustained
  application respectively.
Both terms should be distinguished. Like a bee alighting on a lotus is
  vitakka, like its gyrating around the lotus is vicāra. Like the
  flapping of a bird about to fly is vitakka, like its planning
  movements in the sky is vicāra. Like the beating of a drum or bell is
  vitakka, like its reverberation is vicāra.   Vicāra is also a Jhāna
  factor. It inhibits vicikicchā (Doubt or Indecision). (See Ch. 1. note
  39.)

And for cetanā:

Cetanā -
Both cetanā and citta are derived from the same root Ö cit, to think.
In the case of citta - mind or consciousness - the root assumes the
  meaning of discernment (vijānana), while in cetanā it is used in the
  sense of co-ordination (abhisandhāna) and accumulation (āyūhana).
According to the Atthasālini and Vibhāvini Tīkā cetanā is that which
  co-ordinates the mental states associated with itself on the object of
  consciousness. (Attanā sampayutta-dhamme ārammane abhisandahati). Like
  a chief disciple, or like a carpenter who fulfills his duties and
  regulates the work of others as well, so does cetanā fulfill its own
  function and regulate the function of other concomitants associated
  with itself.
A further explanation has been offered. Cetanā is that which arrives
  at action in conditioning the conditioned. (Sankhatābhisankharane va
  byāpāram āpajjatī'ti cetanā). Cetanā is that which plays a predominant
  part in all actions, moral and immoral.
Shwe Zan Aung says that according to Ledi Sayadaw, the Burmese
  Abhidhamma scholar, "Cetanā acts on its concomitants, acts in getting
  the object, and acts on accomplishing the task, i.e., determines
  action." (Compendium, p. 236).
The most significant mental state in the Mundane Consciousness
  (lokiya) is this cetanā, while in the Supra mundane it is paññā,
  wisdom or insight. Mundane thoughts tend to accumulate Kamma. Supra
  mundane thoughts, on the contrary, tend to eradicate Kamma. Hence
  cetanā in the supra mundane consciousness does not constitute Kamma.
  Cetanā in every moral and immoral type of mundane consciousness, on
  the other hand, is regarded as Kamma. Although Cetanā is found in
  Vipāka types of consciousness too, it is of no moral significance as
  it lacks accumulative power.
It is this cetanā that is alluded to as sankhāra and (Kamma) bhava in
  the Paticca Samuppāda. In the pañcakkhandha, by sankhārakkhandha are
  meant the fifty mental states, excluding vedanā and saññā, with cetanā
  as the foremost.
From a psychological standpoint cetanā determines the activities of
  the mental states associated with it. From an ethical standpoint, it
  determines its inevitable consequences. Hence where there is no
  cetanā, there is no Kamma.

Cetana is executed by action, speech and thinking.

Samma Sankappa - Right Thinking
Samma Vaca - Right Speech
Samma Kammantha - Right Action

So the difference is Cetana includes speech and action where as Sankappa by itself only includes thinking.
Please note that "Right" here is explained properly by Samma Ditti and doesn't mean right action in general sense (eg. Teaching, Nursing).

Great answer Ravindranath.For more details check the following link.http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/noble8path6.pdf

So I gather from what you're saying is that the main meaning of Sankappa is to distinguish "thinking" from Vaca or Kammantha -- and so Sankappa means "thinking" ... perhaps any thinking, including idle thinking -- and Samma Sankappa means "Right thinking", "purposeful thinking", "thinking with a right intention".

Yes. There is a micca (miccha) Sankappa. This basically constitutes thinking not aligned to understanding the Four Noble Truths. Thinking like "there is no reincarnation", "their is no result of good or bad action" and so forth. I believe it's all broken down in sutta, unfortunately i don't know where.

"Right thinking", so to speak, is broken down to two categories by Buddha. 1. Right thinking such as knowing there is result on yourself of good karma and bad karma (one sutta breaks them down properly). 2. Right thinking by Arya bhikkus and Arya disciples which are not associated with the illusion of me, mine or my soul (this too is broken down clearly, in the same sutta)

"There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, etc." is defined as "wrong view" in MN 117. That's a definition of micchādiṭṭhi. I haven't yet found explicit definitions or examples of micchāsaṅkappassa (I only found suttas which say, simply, that wrong thought follows from wrong view and leads to wrong speech etc.).

Chris, there is a sutta which explains the correlation of these these. It goes as Samma Ditti, is the basis for Samma Sankappa, Samma Vaca, Samma Kammantha. Then Buddha says, to take it further on all these three, one uses Samma Vayama, Samma Sathi. It, I believe is understood as, knowing the right way (Ditti) to look at things, striving (Vayama) to maintain it with awareness (Sathi) across thoughts (Sankappa), words (Vaca) and action (Kammantha).

Sankappa - thoughts
Samma Sankappa - benevolent thoughts, throughs of non violence
Cetanā - intention, volition, will (to act)
Latter is on thoughts which drive action and former is thoughts in general.

Doesn't Sankappa imply a sense of purpose, or intention, which follows as a consequence of view? For example "because violence is harmful, therefore I intend to be non-violent" or "because things are unsatisfactory, therefore I intend to renounce them"?

No it is just thinking (thoughts, intention and aspirations)

@ChrisW AN 9.14 refers to saṅkappavitakkā, which obviously is about wholesome 'purposeful thoughts' since such thoughts culminate in Nibbana. AN 9.14 supports your view if you can read AN 9.14 objectively (rather than follow the erroneous views of Piya Tan about AN 9.14, AN 10.58 & AN 8 83, which are all on the same topic). Try here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/all-things-are-rooted-in-desire/4290/4

Hi in regard to Sminda Sirinath, I noticed he somehow connected the root San , in sankalpa with sansara, but the spelling is incorrect the sanskrit word is sam, samsara. Good luck in the future. P.S. I am investiagationg the term Sankalpa, because I came accross the term in the Yoga tradition which was translated as resolve or aspiration or dedication, which I found interesting . So now, I think the buddhists have been under playing or under emphasising this term, sankalpa. which I think is a big deal , in the beginning of our aspiration or even also at the beginning of each day, or the beginning of each practice session. Good Luck everyone. Buddha indeed, does love us all, totally and forever. Never give up on  your Good aspirations.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the difference between Dhamma Diksha and Dhamma Parivarta
I need your kind suggestion regarding different terms in our Buddhism. I wanted to know:

What is the difference between Dhamma Diksha and Dhamma Parivarta?
If a person from Hindu religion is getting Buddha Dhamma Diksha then will he be Buddhist on documentary basis? Or is Dhamma Diksha a kind of vidhi that the person needs to go through?

I think that Diksha and Pravartan both mean something like initiation or commencement.
Diksha apparently means "preparation" and "initiation" (and may be used ceremonially).
Pravartan is used in the Sanskrit name of the Dharmacakrapravartana Sūtra which is translated as "The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of the Dharma".
How the words are used might vary depending on the school.
I think the phrase is used in the Dalit Buddhist movement:

Twenty-two vows of Ambedkar
After receiving ordination, Ambedkar gave dhamma diksha to his followers. The ceremony included 22 vows given to all new converts after Three Jewels and Five Precepts. On 14 October 1956 at Nagpur, Ambedkar performed another mass religious conversion ceremony at Chandrapur.
He prescribed 22 vows to his followers:

I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara, nor shall I worship them.
...

The "Three Jewels" (also called "Refuge") and the "Five Precepts", which are mentioned in the quote above, are the traditional Buddhist initiation ceremonies -- taking refuge (and various numbers of precepts) are common to all schools of Buddhism, and are one of the definitions of "being a Buddhist".

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


text:
Are multiverses real according to Buddhism
i have heard that buddism also says that multiverse exists. So, i want to ask something. Before few weeks, i saw two dreams in which I was totally aware of myself and at that time at those places, i can clearly feel that whatever I was experiencing, they are Real. In other word, if somebody would have come at that time and told me, this is your dream, than i would have laughed to much. In other words, I can still remember all the detail of that place(dream) and time, the detail of my hands etc. How can this be possible? As I've heard that worlds are just state of mind, similarly dream also. So does that makes, the dream world also as a real world, if a person is always their? Can I again feel such experience? That was very cool, I can still remember that. Before sleeping that night, I was thinking about how multiverse is possible, which I think sometime a because these things are very cool, specially from spirtual path. Were those two of the universe(world) among infinite other universe?

It is possible that our “dream world” could be a window to our “mind plane”.   Our past memories of even past lives could live within us in the “näma thalaya” or the “mind plane”. It is not storage in a physical device like a tape. Mind plane is devoid of any material things, it is all “näma“. It can be thought of as in a “different dimension” - this mind plane that we ‘see’ through our “dream world”.
When we dream, we can “hear”, “see” and “do” things but it is all “näma“. When we “play back” memories, it is somewhat like seeing a dream. If we have a strong memory of some event, even from many years ago, we can recall it in our mind instantaneously. We just think about it and we can “see” it plays back with sounds and the background just like it happened. Our minds can connect to the “mind plane” and recall things without a delay. If our brain is the “transmitter” and “receiver” in communications with the mind plane, then as we get old, the “recall power” would get diminished. Meditation may help keep the brain healthy as we grow old.
As per the Teachings the universe is infinite in time and space. Infinite in space means length of the universe, width of the universe or number of solar systems (lokadhātu) in the universe are infinite. In this sense if you use the term “multiverse”, it may not be incorrect. The following is taken from ‘Attakata” Commentaries.

“The portions which consist of one billion solar systems are called “Thri Sahashri Loka Datu” (trisāhasra-mahāsāhasra-lokadhātu or great trichiliocosm, roughly equals to the galaxy in science).
A collection of 1000 solar systems are called “Sahashri Loka Dhatu”(sāhasra-cūḍika-lokadhātu or small chiliocosm). A collection of 1000,000 solar systems are called “Divi Sahashri Loka Dhatu”( dvisāhasra-madhyama-lokadhātu, or medium dichiliocosm).
After solar system being made it will be stable for some time, after that it will be destroying and it will be made again. The time taken to one of this cycle is called “Maha Kalpa(great kalpa)”.
Maha Kalpa is divide in to four equal portions those are time of solar system formation ( Sanwatta Kalpa), time of existence( Sanwatta Sthayi Kalpa), time of destruction(Wiwatta kalpa) and time of emptiness(Wiwatta Sthayi Kalpa). Each one of these time interval is called as an “Asankya Kalpa”. So that one Maha Kalpa is equals to four Asankya Kalpa. One 64th of a Asankya Kalpa is called Antah Kalpa.

beautiful quote to the commentaries, can you also add a reference to those?

31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a few of the great disciples may have managed to do this.

By saying Buddha do you mean siddharth gautam or many Buddha's before Buddha?
Infact Goenka says there have been several Buddhas before siddharth gautam.

There was infinite Buddhas about of which there is a more detail record of the most recent Buddhas. See List of the named Buddhas

There's a follow-up question about this answer, posted here.

According to Buddhist teaching you can experience the following worlds by practicing meditation (Jhana) except States of Deprivation (apaya).
The Thirty-one Planes of Existence

A multiverse isn't a finite concept (since the number of probabilities of splitting a universe is countless). Similarly, some theories state that all state exist but come to realization based on the observer. You can, at the risk of going against what Buddha advices, go ahead and think in ways such as such States come to existence based on the choices we make. Thus it's still Karma, and such States are just realization of choices we make.
This kind of thinking is clearly detrimental for realizing dhamma according to Buddha. Buddha States clearly that the world, multi or single, starts with our six senses and ceases to exist once we are no longer born. Maybe that gives you a hint on how the six senses, accompanied with inputs, produces vingnana, which Buddha calls an illusion (thereby probably making a multiverse an illusion too) and tricks you into contemplating useless subject matter.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

This is a very good answer.


text:
Should I teach an infant practice Anapana?
I want to know what the right age for a child to learn meditation, for example if I do anapana with a toddler, can it stop the development or it will help the child to stay into panya later.
Vipassana courses starts from 8 year old, but that may be due to other reasons, but personally I think I can teach my daughter as soon as possible.
At the time she is less than 3 months old, and she had started making sounds, I know it doesn't make any sense, but this is the age when infants  start to learn and copy things right?
I think if I act like I am breathing my daughter will stop copying me in coming months, so could doing anapana  be good or bad for her?

Are you aware of the objective of anapana meditation? Without being able to communicate why she should practice it, asking her to do it might be dangerous. She might fall under an illusion merely concentrating on breath leads to realization of dhamma.

I have a 17 month old and personally I feel there needs to be an intention to meditate in an individual, rather than blind copying or operant conditioning.. An infant's mind effectively goes through a process of building a self in the first few years and Buddhist thought goes against such a process in a way that I don't think a really young infant will comprehend. Myself, I am waiting till the kid hits 2.5-3 years old, when he will have enough access to language to begin the process of meditation through a personal, conscious choice (if he doesn't want to, then I won't force and will wait!).

I think that if the kid will regulary see you meditating will become curious and then you can use that curiosity to have the intention come from within him.

True - he has been curiously plucking away at the guitar since 6 months old when I play, but if I meditate in front of him, he only tries to peel my eyelids open with his scratchy nails for now! At least in his case, language will be a must!

I really like how expresive your writing is. Best wishes for you and your close ones!

An infant should ideally not practice Anapana without knowing why it is practiced in Buddhism.

knowing by infant or parents ?

I suggest that you speak of the reason(s) why an infant should ideally not do so. You could explain the shortcomings. If you know of infants that were damaged by this practice, don't hesitate in letting us know.

Parents and infant both. The problem with encouraging them to practice blindly is that, nowhere in the Tipitaka do I see Buddha merely preaching Anapana Sathi meditation. He always follows it with some indication to dhamma, such as The Four Noble Truths.

@RavindranathAkila. Your post has been flagged for low-quality due to length and content. Please include your recent comment to your answer in order to increase content-quality.

@RavindranathAkila I was thinking when a child goes to school first time, Do he know why is he going there, but later on after 20 years it makes sense to him, If we start motivating them to focus on breathing why do we need them to know Why?

@Rishi the problem with that approach is not knowing if the child will fall into wrong belief such as merely focusing on breath can lead to Nirvana, hence unable to do so concluding Buddhism is not effective.

@RavindranathAkila Yes But on the other hand gradually child will stop making now sankara's and which is the step 1, if i am not wrong and later on he can be teached that this was step 1 and now step 2 e.g. vipassana

We never know exactly the past karma of the individual let alone other however close, even of ourselves. The best thing is watch closely the behavior and emotional changes and act yourselves as a role model.

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


text:
Consciousness, death and reincarnation
First of all, I'd like to say I'm a scientist. This means fact will always come before faith, even if it hurts. In general, one's opinion doesn't mean much if the question itself has no meaning, but when the question is well phrased and has a quantitative background, then experiment is the ultimate - and decisive - destination.
Secondly, I'm afraid this will be a rather long question.
According to Walpola Rahula in his book What the Buddha Taught, Buddhism denies the existence of a soul or spirit:

Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self, or Atman. According to the teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of 'me' and 'mine', selfish desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilements, impurities and problems. It is the source of all the troubles in the world from personal conflicts to wars between
  nations. In short, to this false view can be traced all the evil in the world.

This pleases me very much. As a scientist, I cannot conceive the existence of something we cannot observe or measure that lives on after I die. Everything Buddhism talks about pleases me very much: everything is dukkha, there's a way out of dukkha, we are unhappy because we cling to everything, and the path outside this unhappiness is to understand nothing has intrinsic value or meaning. In resume: I think Buddhism, unlike the other religions I've been exposed to, is beautiful and makes sense. But then I have a problem - and it's a big one, because it's in the eye of the tornado.
According to Walpola Rahula (same book),

Will, volition, desire, thirst to exist, to continue, to become more and more, is a tremendous force that moves whole lives, whole existences, that even moves the whole world. This is the greatest force, the greatest energy in the world. According to Buddhism, this force does not stop with the non-functioning of the body, which is death; but it continues manifesting itself in another form, producing re-existence which is called rebirth.

Now we have a problem. I've seen people discussing the differences between mind, brain, consciousness, etc. Well, science is pretty clear: the evidence is now overwhelming that every aspect of the mind is produced by the brain. I'm pretty familiar with NMR scanning and did read some hundreds of articles about the subject, and we have a huge, massive consensus that nothing survives our death. Not a force, not a will... Nothing. We can't see nothing. It doesn't exist.
Now, I have come to a more traditional (non-westernized) version of rebirth by reading this wonderful, majestically written article by an evolutionary biologist (and aspiring Buddhist): even though people like to talk about rebirth as a deterministic process, it is not. It appears Buddha himself (see article) has said that rebirth is like lighting a candle with another's fire: everything is lost and there cannot be a causal process that links you to "former lives". Actually, the only part of rebirth that doesn't violate scientific laws is to say that my atoms will be reborn in other creatures and objects. And that pleases me very much.
Now, a famous quote says that:

If science proves some belief of Buddhism is wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.

It is attributed to Dalai Lama (probably wrongly), and is found in this great article by Tenzin Gyatso, where many scientifically proved benefits of meditation are discussed. If this sentence makes sense to Buddhists, why do they keep insisting in the concept of rebirth? Science is clear: there's no support of any evidence in its favour, at least not in the way I see people treating the subject. Buddha's metaphor about "lighting candles" is much better to have as an example, since it doesn't contradict facts, even though it doesn't make a lot of sense either.
I'd therefore like to know passages from suttas where Buddha affirms that knowledge of past lives is unattainable, or at least where He elucidates reincarnation is not something causal. If there aren't any, why do people still believing in this concept? Only because they feel safer?
Edit: This question is turning into a chimaera of weird unwanted lessons: people telling me I'm not ready for knowledge, or that articles that elucidate their misconceptions are not valid, or that I don't know the meaning of truth, or people trying to teach me concepts my PhD is about, and even people saying their own views are perfect. Until now, the most useful references where given by Dhammadhatu, and the best answers by ChrisW and Tenzin Dorje. Please refrain from counselling and preaching.

Walpola Rahula's book is overrated & contains many misunderstandings. A better title for it should be: "What Walpola believes the Buddha taught". If you are a scientist, I would suggest reading Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's books, such as: (1) https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf   (2) http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books5/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Two_Kinds_of_Language.htm (3) http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books5/Buddhadassa_Bhikkhu_Buddha_Dhamma_for_University_Students.pdf

People: please post answers (even short answers) and not comments.

And please answer the question, however briefly, instead of (or at least as well as) offering unsolicited advice.

The Buddha did not say that rebirth is like lighting a candle with another's fire. This idea is from the monk Nagasena in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milinda_Panha, which is an example of the later-day corruption of Buddhism.

The question contains unscientific superstition, where it state: "my atoms will be reborn in other creatures and objects". The Buddha did not teach the atoms or elements (dhatu) were "my" atoms.

@Dhammadhatu Your comments are being of great help. Thank you very much!

Please refrain from counselling and preaching Yes, counselling and preaching are contrary to several of the proposed FAQs for this site. I allowed them (especially, I delayed deleting some dubious comments), because you (the OP) posted comments like, "That's helpful" and "That's useful" etc. But please feel free to "flag" (for moderator attention) answers and comments which you find useless or which don't answer the question, etc., and also downvote answers which aren't helpful. I appreciate that you remain[ed] polite.

@ChrisW Thank you. Since this is my first post in this community, I'm not fully aware of the etiquette here. I'm an active member of [Physics, Mathematics and Mathematica].SE and must admit the etiquettes in those three communities are very different. I'll take a tour on the Buddhism's FAQ and be sure to adequate my behaviour as much as possible to the community's expected line of acting.

One of the differences is that moderators of this site have been asked to moderate as little as possible, if at all. As long as people seem willing to converse I (as moderator) try to not prevent that. As well as discussion, a certain amount of (polite) criticism in comments is good, because that's how mistakes are corrected and answers improved. But I'd prefer that content were useful and on-topic, and that users weren't antagonistic. My mandate e.g. here is to moderate answers only after input (e.g. downvotes or flags) from the community.

I'd like to say this line of moderation is very beneficial, in general - specially to a community that allows a certain level of openness in dialogue (physics is very strict, because most questions make no sense). Open moderation is consistent with stackoverflow's line, which is theoretically expected to be very efficient.

@ChrisW What is the etiquette about answering your own question? After reading a lot on the subject I've established an understanding (mostly due to Dhammadhatu's references) but I'd also like to know if it's correct. Maybe it's a better idea to create a new question. What do you think?

I think the etiquette is, please don't post a question because you want to post your own answer to it. This meta-answer had the most upvotes on that topic (so it's a proposed FAQ). But self-answering is permitted on other SE sites and so it's (at least) tolerated here, e.g. if it happens organically (you didn't know an answer at the time when you posted your question), and you don't do it too too often.

You could post something as a new question, but only if you had a new question to ask. For example, people found it difficult to answer the first (non-edited) version of this question, because it was written using declarative statements without asking a specific question.

@ChrisW thanks. I'll talk to Dhammadhatu directly, then.

@Dhammadhatu I've read all your references. I genuinely thank you for them. The vision that rebirth is happening at every second, and that all these notions that most people push forward as being literal are actually talking about instances of the same existence has changed my view completely. Everything started making sense, now. Even the dozens of worlds, and rebirth, and kamma. Everything. To be safe in assuming this position, definitely, I'd like to know how usual is this point of view within Buddhism, because it seems everyone really talks about literal rebirth.

@Dhammadhatu indeed, even the Dalai Lama, by saying he will not reincarnate in Tibet anymore if China doesn't leave it alone, is using literal rebirth as a tool for a (rather childish) protest. I don't know Mahayana very well, but it seems literal rebirth there is the rule. Is this view of rebirth you've shown me common in Theravada? Or which school? Is it well accepted?

IMO "rebirth is happening at every second" is (accepting that as a loose translation) a common or mainstream view -- see e.g. this answer (the Abidhamma is canonical but, I think, later than the earlier suttas). There's less consensus about whether (literal) "life-after-life rebirth" happens as well as "moment-after-moment rebirth". An informal something commonly called Secular Buddhism in the West "strips off" beliefs in literal rebirth etc.

@ChrisW It appears to me Secular Buddhism (SB) is basically atheism of someone who though Buddha had a good idea going on. I like the idea of removing all magic from Buddhism, e.g, I truly appreciate the fact that SB talks about the five aggregates as merely a an idea that would occur to someone who lived before the discovery of neuroscience and biology. I also like to see how, in the light of non-literal rebirth, basically all fundamental aspects of Buddhism remain untouched and valid even though you striped off all scientifically vague terms.

The point is that, IMO, SB goes too far in saying that the Buddhist conception that "the world is suffering and illumination is the way out of it" is non-literal. This didn't please me at all. Striping off vague scientific assertions is one thing, but denying the main premise is a totally different story. Actually, I had a hard time understanding why, in the first place, SB is Buddhism... It just looks like dogmatic nihilism. They keep the eightfold path and deny the four noble truths.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

why do people still believing in this concept? Only because they feel safer?
That sounds like a question which ought to have been answered by this earlier question: What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth?
The most on-topic answer to that question seems to me to be Ven. Yuttadhammo's, and the second article of Bhikkhu Bodhi's which he quotes.
I summarize these answers as:

It's what the Buddha taught, according to the suttas
It encourages moral behaviour (even virtuous deaths)
It encourages us to be, not only heedful of the now, but to also wisely review our past
It makes us examine cause-and-effect, and conditionality (as you are doing, in this topic)
It makes us consider what (and when) conciousness is (e.g. it's not the same thing as the body)

I'd therefore like to know passages from suttas where Buddha affirms that knowledge of past lives is unattainable, or at least where He elucidates reincarnation is not something causal.
There are passages in the suttas where, I think, the Buddha affirms that he has seen his own past lives. It's described in Maha-Saccaka Sutta MN 36 in which he describes his becoming enlightened:

When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details.
This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.

In other suttas the Buddha sometimes also described what someone's current (new) abode was, after they died.
But apart from that, to try to answer your question, there are other suttas too, where I think he does suggest that knowledge of past lives is unattainable or, at least, not a useful goal at this stage.
The Sabbasava Sutta warns that there are questions:

Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? etc. etc.

... and views:

The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self etc. etc.

... and warns that these kinds of thinking do not lead to freedom:

This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

I take that as a warning that thinking about (having views about) a "self" will produce a "thicket of views".
Another part of Buddhism Dharma is anatta which you may need to integrate or reconcile with the theory-or-doctrine of rebirth.
Some (many) people distinguish "reincarnation" from "rebirth": in that "reincarnation" implies that something, the same thing (e.g. a "soul"), is being reincarnated (which is contrary to the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta); whereas "rebirth" just implies another birth (of a different "being").
And some people say that "past life" is a mistranslation of "past abode" ... and that successive lives should be understand as successive moments of being or of identity-view (i.e. of believing that the self exists), within this (body's) life ... I think this is as opposed to a so-called "literal belief in rebirth".
Actually, the only part of rebirth that doesn't violate scientific laws is to say that my atoms will be reborn in other creatures and objects.
If my mum and I look at some apple, do we see the same thing? Are we both conscious of seeing it? Do we both have apple-seeing-consciousness? Do we share apple-seeing-consciousness? And without "she" and "me" as personal identities, does apple-seeing-consciousness exist in two bodies?
It may be a mistake to see them as "my" atoms (or my apple-seeing-consciousness). The first sutta of the Anatta doctrine teaches, "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self".
the evidence is now overwhelming that every aspect of the mind is produced by the brain
Taking Isaac Newton as a famous example, isn't it more obvious that (moment of) consciousness was produced by an apple, falling on his head?
I think I understand what you're saying, though, which is that "mind is conditioned by the brain". I think that translations of Buddhism into English uses the verb condition, to mean, "a brain is a necessary condition for a mind to exist, so if brain ceases then mind ceases (or, mind doesn't arise) too".
But rebirth: a new brain, the whole apparatus (ignoring, for the sake of argument, possibility of rebirth in one of the formless realms).

This is a very, very good answer. I'll reply you tomorrow, but thank you already.

MN 36 does not refer to "past lives". This is a mistranslation of the Pali "pubbe nivasa", which ,for example, is not translated as "past lives" here https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.79 & here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html  The mention of the Sabba Sutta should be a redflag, since it raises a contradiction. Also, when monks died, the Buddha seemed to refer to their attainment just before they died rather than after they died.

@Dhammadhatu The word is Pubbe,nivāsanânussati,ñāṇa which I see the dictionary translates as (literally) "abodes", from a verb whose meaning is given as "live, dwell, inhabit". I also had a reference to one of your answers, that "past life" is a mistranslation of "past abode"; I don't know what more (or less) you want me to put in this answer.

I suggest to research how the word "abode" is used in the suttas. It is generally used to refer to a mental states, such as: Bhikkhus, there are these ten abodes of the noble ones in which the noble ones abide in the past, present, or future. What ten?
3“Here, a bhikkhu (1) has abandoned five factors; (2) possesses six factors; (3) has a single guard (4) and four supports; (5) has dispelled personal truths, (6) totally renounced seeking, (7) purified his intentions, (8) tranquilized bodily activity, and become (9) well liberated in mind and (10) well liberated by wisdom. AN 10.20

@Dhammadhatu Don't individual words have several meanings (I think dhamma is a famous example)? When a word is used, mightn't it sometimes have several meanings simultaneously (e.g. "past life" and "past abode"); or have a meaning that should to be deduced, from the context (by a skilled translator)? Three or four English translations of MN 36 that I read (including SuttaCentral) translate it as "lives". Do you have another translator's translation, which you prefer? And, to comment on this answer, do you have any specific suggestion how to improve it?

Recollecting past abodes in explained in SN 22.79, which does not contradict  the Sabbasava Sutta. Words only have meaning in context. Dictionaries are useless without context. There are no skilled translators. They are all guessing. Recollecting past abodes is explained in context in SN 22.79 and that is the final word on the matter as far as scholarship goes. SN 22.79 states recollecting past abodes is recollecting when the mind in the past ignorantly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as 'self'. One aggregate, for example, cannot be a "past life". Regards

@Dhammadhatu How do you reconcile your position that "it's not talking about past lives", with kappa ("aeon") being in the formula? Doesn't "many kappas" make it, unambiguously, "many lives"? And what about the formula which is translated, "on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears etc."?

SN 22.79 explains the practise. Pubbe nivasa formula does not include "on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears etc." Regardless, "kaya" does not mean physical body & death (marana) does not mean physical death. "Kappa" can mean "period of time", such as in DN 16, where Buddha said if he could live out a lifespan  (kappa) to 100 years if he chose to. Buddhism is about verifiable things & not about speculations. The Buddha said his Dhamma is verifiable, visible here & now, etc. .

@Dhammadhatu Perhaps you've explained (I've understood) your doctrine now. I'm pretty sure that some people understand it as "literal rebirth" and it's evident that many people translate it thus. I wanted to sketch a complete and accurate summary (of the doctrine[s]) to the OP, as well some explanation in my own words. I quoted a (more-or-less standard) translation, and I quoted one of your answers saying that "past life" is a mistranslation of "past abode". You may object to the answer's saying "the Buddha affirms" but even an article like ...

... this one, A Secular Evaluation of Rebirth, starts with, "Insofar as we know anything about his dhamma, we know that the Buddha taught literal rebirth". So it's hard for me to see that my answer is wrong, i.e. whether and how I ought to edit it, though you've showing that you find it debatable. And yes the dhamma is said to be verifiable and so on (that was part of my first question on this topic).

@Dhammadhatu how does your theory reconcile with the sutta in which the Buddha explains how beings are born beautiful or ugly or have long or short lives based on actions from past lives?

@Dhammadhatu or with the Stream Enterer that has 7 lives more max until realization of Nibbana?

@UrsulRosu The end of this answer, and the comments underneath, show Dhammadhatu's interpretation/theory/reconciliation of the sutta about stream entry ... i.e. it's that seven fetters are remaining, not seven lives remaining ... because, stream entry means abandoning the first 3 of 10 fetters (so 7 remaining).

@Dhammadhatu and the sutta in which the Buddha said that a being through journeying in Samsara has more bones accumulated if they were put toghether than the highest mountain or more tears than oceans.

@Dhammadhatu or that the result of kamma is of three types: in this very life, in the next birth, or in a subsequent birth.

@Dhammadhatu the suttas seem incongruent on annata because there are two types of right views. 1 - kamma as one's own which is helpful in Samsara (this is for the ordinary man until he reaches some understanding) 2 - for transceding the world ; the noble eightfold path; no references to persons, no talk of oneself or other. Just a whole mass of suffering (the 5 aggregates of grasping) the law of dependent arising

There is no evidence the Buddha spoke any metaphors about "bones accumulated if they were put toghether than the highest mountain or more tears than oceans". Such ideas are contrary to the definition of the Dhamma as visible here & now. Please do not attempt to discuss superstition with me. The fact that these suttas in the SN all end with the teaching of dispassion shows your passion for reincarnation has miscontrued these suttas. Obviously, there is a mistranslation somewhere. Thank you

@Dhammadhatu ok, Dhamma being visible here and now it is not about past lifes. It is about the Law of Depending Arising which is visible here and now.

@UrsulRosu There were some further answers on this topic here: How do we know that the suttas talk about past lives?

@UrsulRosu Pleaes stop spamming my posts & seeking a debate with me. The forum is not a debate forum. The suttas do not teach about past lives (apart from some later Jataka suttas). The Pali "pubbe nivesa" does not mean "past lives".  Please study appropriately rather than try to debate with "folk Buddhism". Please refer to SN 22.79, which explains exactly the meaning of recollecting "pubbe nivasa" ("past abodes"/"past adherences"). Thank you

@Dhammadhatu no problem. But I would like to understand your view by asking you one final question that will tell all: what will happen to you after death?

Death (marana) is a self-view in Buddhism. If you want to understand more, ask a question about the meaning of "marana" because this is not a chat forum. Regards

Everything is dukkha

Not everything is dukkha. Otherwise, there would be no way out.

Nothing has intrinsic value or meaning.

It is not so much that phenomena lack intrinsic value or meaning, it is that they lack intrinsic existence. The object of negation is a mode of existence, it is not just value or meaning.
As to your question, consciousness is that which is clear and knowing. It is in the nature of clarity and has the function of knowing. Since a consciousness is always a consciousness of something, we usually speak in terms of instances. For instance, we speak of "an eye consciousness apprehending a cup", "an ear consciousness apprehending a birdsong", "a memory consciousness remembering a person" and so forth. There is no consciousness that does not depend on a basis that is its apprehended object. This is one of the various reasons we say there is no soul (if by soul we mean something immaterial that does not depend on an apprehended object).
Furthermore, we would probably agree with the scientific claim that "Consciousness depends on the brain." The whole question is: In what way does consciousness depend on the brain? What is the nature of that dependence?
A consciousness also depends on its apprehended object, since there is no independent consciousness. A consciousness also depends on its function, since there is no consciousness that does not accomplish a function. A consciousness also depends on the previous moment of consciousness, and so forth. Thus, a consciousness depends on various factors, but that does not mean that these factors are necessary conditions.
I doubt His Holiness (whom you quote) would be convinced that the brain and consciousness (that is, the mind stream) are one entity. I doubt he would be convinced one is a necessary condition of the other. In fact, there is no proof that the brain is a necessary condition, merely that consciousness depends on it. In short, we do not know the nature of this dependence.
All in all, His Holiness's school posits that the substantial cause of consciousness is a preceding moment of consciousness. It means that a consciousness is like a seed to a tree. A seed causes the tree, it becomes the tree, it no longer exists at the time of the tree (unlike your parents who caused your birth and still exist after that), and is a necessary condition. It is the main reason why we say that, since a consciousness can not turn into anything but a next moment of consciousness, the continuum does not end. So-called Hinayana tenets might hold a different view.

There are numerous studies (some dating back to the beginning of the XIX century) that show we can hinder a person from seeing, hearing and speaking by electromagnetic fields of direct electrical stimulation of the brain. We can therefore directly influence what you call "conscience" by direct stimulation. Doesn't that prove conscience is born and depends solely on the brain for you?

No. It proves that there are instances of consciousness that depend on the brain, but it proves nothing else. In the same way, an eye consciousness apprehending a cup depends on the cup and it also depends on the eyeball (among other factors). This does not prove the eye consciousness "is born from" or "depends solely on the eyeball."

The "eye consciousness" is the brain's response to the stimulation of the eye due to light. If you say conscience exists outside of the brain, what you are saying is that vision exists without an eye. Am I getting it right?

I am not sure what you mean with "brain's response" or "existing outside the brain", but consciousness is not matter, it is not atomically established (as opposed to the brain, the eyeball, the cup, the bio-electrical signals in the brain, etc). Maybe it's what you mean with "existing outside the brain." I am not implying that an eye consciousness exist without a eye, however there is seeing (by mental consciousness) without an eye. How can you prove that the brain is a necessary condition of consciousness? All you can prove is that instances of consciousness depend on it.

I don't see us reaching an agreement because of a simple problem: our definitions are different, and so is our language. Consciousness is, for me (and science), the act of being aware - aware of the presence of an object, a person, being alive, thinking, etc. The possibility of awareness without a brain, which is where we process information (we sense our own presence based on our senses, as every other aspect that defines the scientific notion of consciousness - and they are all exclusively processed in our brains), makes no sense. Is like feeling cold without a body.

The suttas state there can be no arising of consciousness without sense organs or a physical body. refer to MN 38, SN 12.67, SN 22.53

@QuantumBrick Our definition is probably different indeed. I'm surprised you speak of consciousness as "being aware" since this seems vague. However, I'm sure we agree on the following point: that consciousness is not matter, not atomically established (it can not be seen, touched, smelled, etc). Also, you could rephrase you claim and say "There is none being aware of anything when the brain ceases to function" and maybe we could understand each other better than by discussing consciousness itself, for a start.

@Dhammadhatu First, I don't think that QuantumBrick would take scripture as a proof. That's one of the reason I didn't quote. Second, MN 38 states consciousness as depending on name & form: I agree, but there is name and form in the bardo and in the formless realm as well. Third, MN 38 states speaks of mental consciousness, saying "Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness." It is precisely the mental consciousness that still functions at the time of death, in the bardo, in the formless realm according to Mahayana.

MN 38 does not state consciousness as depending on name & form. it states consciousness arises dependent upon sense organs & sense objects. There is no evidence intellect consciousness does not function at death. The suttas do not state this.

Sense consciousnesses arise in dependence upon sense organs while the mental consciousness does not. As my teacher said in his commentary to Lorig "The basis (i.e. the uncommon empowering condition), which can be physical or mental, makes the consciousness either a sense consciousness or a mental consciousness." Also, there is the organ. The organ of a mental consciousness is not form, it is not the brain for instance. Then you say "here is no evidence intellect consciousness does not function at death". Here, we are saying the same thing.

the path outside this unhappiness is to understand nothing has
  intrinsic value or meaning.

There is intrinsic (objective) meaning to be found. It is the truths of anicca (impermanence) and anatta (non-self).. Relational QM (because it fixes the EPR paradox), the effectiveness of General Relativity, which is background independent (as well as it's global solution of 'nothing happens' which agrees with RQM), Noether's theorem, the observed flatness of (local) space time all point to these two, in one way or another.
The Dhamma is the unalterable law that experience is conditioned, dependently originated, without an intrinsic, Essential Self - without the Form that Plato's Parmenides had so much faith in, even after he demonstrated logically that it made no sense!
Within conditioned experience, there is no thing (I prefer 'no thing' to 'nothing' as the former describes a lack of conceptualization, whilst the latter is a concept about the lack of concepts) to fall back on as intrinsically true. However, that does not mean that experience does not operate on a rule that is omnipresent (not omniscient or omnipotent).
The law of this world, empty of Essence, is one of regularity. Regularity in physical systems, chemical systems, biological systems. https://phys.org/news/2017-03-physics-wealth-inequality.html for a physics theory that seemingly explains wealth inequality in society. The Buddha simply pushed the boundary of this regularity into the field of ethics.
The way I see rebirth (and this is a personal conception, one I believe is at best an inaccurate approximation of rebirth, because there are Essential elements to the thought process), is that in a boundless existence (as anicca and anatta imply), at each instant in time, beings arise, with an average Kammic load of 0 (no Essentials means it cannot be any number other than that at the limit of 'all experience', but then 0 is a pretty essential concept, so bear with me!). However, there will be a myriad of beings ceasing who would have led immoral lives, a myriad of beings ceasing who would have led moral lives, a myriad arising who will begin life with a disadvantage, a myriad who will begin life with an advantage. Net-net, you have two options - you can say that there is no connection, that beings arise in their circumstances by chance, or you can connect all the dots, linearly, as a one-to-one function, from death to rebirth.
"When each individual frame of reference is taken into account, the perception of experience will match experience, on average, as a one to one function". To deny that on average, the perception of violence would have manifested as 'violence', the perception of greed would have manifested as 'greed' (even if those are empty terms in themselves), is to deny the regularity that is so evident within our modern, scientific understanding of the world. External conditions can play a chancery role on the small scale, but there are no external conditions to the 5 skandhas (the mind-body experience as defined by the Buddha), and therefore for rebirth - which is a concept that requires a consideration of All of experience, chance simply has no place.
Science takes the general view (imo) that the physical world is objective, and it leads to, produces a subjective, conscious experience. The Dhamma however, is dependently originated, with neither 'body' nor 'mind' being the causal element for the other - they arise together.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

As a scientist, I cannot conceive the existence of something we cannot observe or measure that lives on after I die.
...  Well, science is pretty clear: the evidence is now overwhelming that every aspect of the mind is produced by the brain.

Sense impressions are tied to the mental body while conceptual impressions are tied to the physical body. Your mental body process surview death. More on this see this answer and this answer.

deterministic process, it is not

And going further, he reviews bones covered with skin, flesh and blood, and he knows the unbroken stream of consciousness as established in this world and established in the next.
...
And going further, he reviews bones covered with skin, flesh and blood, and he knows the unbroken stream of consciousness as both unestablished in this world and unestablished in the next.

Sampasadanīya Sutta (Quoted from Piya Tan's Translation of DN 28)
The process may initially seem continuous but in reality it is discontinuous. Given your field best is to see it as a discrete stochastic process. Some of the basic causality arisen stream of states is described in Dependent Arising. Also see: Dependent Arising by Piya Tan
The rebirth is also probabilistic. So is Karma in general. Good Karma increases the possibility of good future states. These states arise and pass in much rapidity.

If there aren't any, why do people still believing in this concept?

Abhidhamma studies by Nyanaponika Thera, page 45 describes, momentarily Dependent Arising.
When you get into deep meditation (many years of practice for some) you will see this process. This is not to be believed. It is to be verified at the experiential level. In the training follows this principle:

theory - to be learned and develop some faith just enough to explore further
practice - practice which leads to verification of the theory
verification - observed and verified results

Now rebirth cannot be verified without the practice leading to it. You can verify past lives if you develop the ability to recollect. If not still you can verify it in this lifetime. In a split second the material in our body disintegrates and reforms as part of the dependent arising process. (Process of Consciousness and Matter: The Philosophical Psychology of Buddhism
by Rewata Dhamma, page 39, states this is more than 58 billion times a second) This also is verifiable through meditation when you make your mind at least as sharp enough to see Kalapas. Physical death and conception is only a special case in this process.

Your answer takes the literal interpretation point of view, which deeply disturbs me. A large part of this question has become, for me, the discussions between Dhammadhatu and ChrisW. His references to Buddhadasa Bikkhu have fitted me better then the literal view of the process. Stochastic processes leave no memory, so it would be impossible to recollect past lives information. The interpretation of kamma as a gauge that increases and decreases based on your actions doesn't help me either - again, Buddhadasa's make more sense to me.

Memory impressions, karma, etc. are hidden states. When new memory impression is registered there is a transition of internal state. Similarly for Karma.

Rebirth in the traditional sense may or may not happen. Despite what you say about NMR (which I also studied), we don't have any scientific evidence either way. But in the momentary sense, in the sense of being a different person in a different world from one moment to the next, this certainly seems to me to be what happens.
And with respect to the traditional understanding of rebirth, Buddhism's view is that circumstances come and go (are born and die), but that there is something which isn't born and doesn't die. What of this thing that isn't born and doesn't die? What of it before your physical birth, what of it after your physical death?

"Something which isn't born and doesn't die" -- According to Buddhism, only nirvana fits that description, isn't that so? Or (according to slightly later Buddhist doctrine) possibly Buddha-nature?

I don't think 'nirvana' or 'Buddha nature' are good words for it (and we tend not to use 'nirvana' in Zen/Mahayana). 'Nirvana' suggests a quality and 'Buddha nature' is too theoretical. I'd probably call it 'self' (at the risk of provoking Buddhist pedants) or 'what is alive' or 'what experiences', although these are open to misunderstanding.

In the Pali canon "deathless" is a synonym for (or an attribute of) nirvana; and "unborn" seems to me like "unconditioned", which again implies nirvana. But I respect that nirvana may be de-emphasized in Mahayana generally.

Debating names and definitions isn't what we do in Zen :) It's what you are, what's alive, what your 'original face' is.

My person would wonder how alternativ speculations would manifest if thinking on "Where I am from?" with all that individual and unique features.
Would it even cause more suffering as the answers thoughts and approach?
Where or what, are you thinking, that you are from? Maybe you remember if concentration is clear and undisturbed. Of course that requires certain traing and given path. But maybe simply try, to know for you self, even here & now.
For this Dhamma is to be realize for oneself, for the wise, open to get taimed.
[Note: This is a gift Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

I've seen people discussing the differences between mind, brain, consciousness, etc. The evidence is now overwhelming that every aspect of the mind is produced by the brain.

Proof can be subjective (everybody expects different sets of evidences). Most of the studies are very limited and based on the wrong scientific assumptions that all matter is unconscious, consciousness is an illusory artefact of the chemical brain and there is no spirit, no mind and nothing other than mechanical and chemical stuff.
There are many hypotheses of our existence and ultimately we can never prove something for 100% as there are always some other factors due to complexity of our reality that we're living. The problem is that a scientific theory must make testable or refutable predictions of what should happen or be seen under a given set of new, independent, observing or analysis circumstances from the particular problem or observation the theory was originally designed to explain. Therefore you can't even prove your own existence. Secondly non-physical spirit world can't be measured using physical instruments, because it doesn't make sense to do that and it goes beyond that.
However there are certain scientific studies which proves otherwise (that mind is produced by the brain), for example Consciousness as a State of Matter (see: video) by Max Tegmark, Professor of Physics at MIT which explains that consciousness can be understood as a state of matter (perceptronium), capable of giving rise to self-awareness and subjectivity.

NMR scanning and did read some hundreds of articles about the subject, and we have a huge, massive consensus that nothing survives our death. Not a force, not a will... Nothing.

Maybe mentioned NMR scanning was not the right tool to measure something out of thin air and giving subjective "prove" that nothing survives after our death based on the failed experiment. There were many attempts using different methods which were actually successful. For example Russian scientist Konstantin Korotkov photographed a person at the moment of his death with a bioelectrographic camera and his Kirlian photography shows the life force of the person leaving the body gradually.

the only part of rebirth that doesn't violate scientific laws is to say that my atoms will be reborn in other creatures and objects

These are wrong assumptions. You need to open your mind and start seeing reality in terms of waves, not the separate atoms (oneness not separateness). Double slit experiment (see: video) gives another clue that it is consciousness that affects our reality and that we are actually living in simulated reality (see: holographic principle). Recent UK, Canadian and Italian study gives evidence that our universe could be a vast and complex hologram where information makes up our 3D 'reality', not atoms it-self.
Professor Skenderis comments: "Einstein’s theory of general relativity explains almost everything large scale in the universe very well, but starts to unravel when examining its origins and mechanisms at quantum level. Scientists have been working for decades to combine Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum theory. Some believe the concept of a holographic universe has the potential to reconcile the two."
Based on above recent studies, it is suggested that all physical manifestation (including illusional existence of atoms) comes from self-aware consciousness which can be a state of matter.

Science is clear: there's no support of any evidence in its favour, at least not in the way I see people treating the subject.

Science was also clear some time ago that our Earth is flat. If you think the example is too old, what about long-term clarity of science that there are no any planets in our Solar System beyond Pluto due to ultimate trust in modern scientific measurement tools (not to mention wide criticism of researchers who claimed opposite)? Now science found something opposite, that there is actually extra Solar System planet (appeared from nowhere?) and now we need to rewrite a lot of scientific books again.
Therefore please be aware that science is constantly evolving, scientific theories constantly are superseded by new one which are more adequate and it would be very wrong to assume that all current scientific assumptions are fixed (see: superseded scientific theories). Therefore we can't assume that a single body-of-knowledge has the ultimate truth. Science means 'knowledge' and it's about questioning everything and seeing everything from the different point of view based on conclusions given the available data.

As a scientist, I cannot conceive the existence of something we cannot observe or measure that lives on after I die.

There is usually no 'we', as in most cases studies are performed by limited number of people within limited set of conditions on limited number of people (which they barely know) using limited laboratory setups (spirit world doesn't work like that), and other people just reading about their conclusions which are influenced by their own point of view. Then the rest repeating what they've just read without trying to repeat the same study for them-self justifying they won't be able to achieve the same under same laboratory conditions. Furthermore, we tempt to reject any successful metaphysical studies (such as this one) given the fact that we no longer subject metaphysical experiments to the laws of physics. So according to modern scientific logic, if you can't measure something - it doesn't exist, even you can experience it or see it with your own eyes (e.g. Qi Gong experiment).
Same with dreams and thoughts. We know they do exist, but they cannot be measured using physical instruments (we can measure brain waves, but it doesn't prove their existence). This is due to fact that majority experiencing this phenomenon and no one questioning it. Similar with OBE, if more people will experience this in first person, at the end we'll have to accept it as a fact without able to measure it.
So what about changing scientific approach from relying on external sources into experiencing them on your own (similar like with dreams)? Like experiencing flow of energy in your third eye which could not take long time to practice. Many people in the world mastered astral projection which was studied by many scientists in the past with successful results.
So in fact, you can 'observe' this phenomena, however not by using scientific physical instruments, but by experiencing yourself and observing it directly by inducing an OBE via meditation. You can also experience and measure this phenomenon using your own mind-body-spirit complex if we can classify own being as a measuring instrument.

He elucidates reincarnation is not something causal. If there aren't any, why do people still believing in this concept?

People are believing in reincarnation concept, because it makes perfect sense. Based on above mentioned facts and by connecting all the dots together, one can easily come into same logical conclusion without need of blindly following mainstream knowledge.
When you come into realization that consciousness is not only illusory artefact of the chemical brain, but it's omnipresence beyond time and space (where time and space is illusionary construct, even according to Einstein), you will start seeing everything from different angle and your mind's perception will change forever.

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

Buddha says the world begins with the six senses. Where there is a formation of the fix senses, there is formation of the world. (Samyutta Nikaya -1 / 1.7.10 - Loka Sutta). Where there is no formation of the six senses, the world ceases to exist (Samyutta Nikaya - 2 / 1.5.4 - Loka Sutta).
Science looks at birth as something that occurs in the world, or universe. Buddhism on the otherhand stipulated that world (universe) as something that occurs with the formation of the six senses. A scientist, looking at this scientifically, will have to agree, or disprove that the world ceases to exist where there is no six senses. A sensible scientist will therefore explore further on the six senses. However, I haven't seen such sensibility so far. Probably due to lack of original Buddhist suttas being available to them.
Reincarnation and consciousness is something even science has no clue on. For example, science has no idea how memory is stored(encoded) except that they know if parts of the brain damage, people lose certain skills (such as when reading they don't see vowels but can see other letters).
There is some hints science has on matters such as mind. For example it suspects that observers (mind, consciousness) defines the state of the observant (Schrödinger's cat).
Buddha speaks of Arya Experimentation. That is, to experiment on understanding the Four Noble Truths. Falling short, you will be contemplating over endless scientific material (as all things that arise are subject to change) forever. A person with common sense therefore, might set that aside and continue on Arya Experimentation.

AN 3.136 https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.136 states dhammas exist independent of cognition. Thus, your post about how 'the (physical) world' cannot exist without mind is unrelated to Buddhism. The Buddha concerned himself with suffering & its cessation and used the term "the world" as a synonym for suffering. Thus, when the Buddha taught the world arises due to ignorance, he was referring to the world of suffering. Refer to AN 4.45; SN 12.44; etc

You have not understood the sutra correctly, What Buddha States is that the nature of those dhamma exists whether or not Buddha exists. The nature of a mother is loving to their child whether she is alive or passed away. However, she might not be around to exhibit it.

Sinhalese translation is easier to understand: “මහණෙනි, තථාගතයන් උපන්කල හෝ නූපන්කල හෝ සියලු සංස්කාරයෝ අනිත්‍යහ යන ධර්මස්වභාවය ධර්මනියාමය ඇත්තේමය.  “ඒ ස්වභාවය තථාගත තෙම අවබොධ කරයි, ප්‍රතිවෙධ කරයි. අවබොධකොට ප්‍රතිවෙධකොට සියලු සංස්කාර ධර්මයෝ අනිත්‍යහයි ප්‍රකාශකරයි, දෙශනාකරයි, පනවයි, පිහිටුවයි, විවරණය කරයි, විභජනය කරයි, ප්‍රකට කරයි.  “මහණෙනි, තථාගතයන් වහන්සේලා උපන්කල හෝ නූපන්කල හෝ සියලු සංස්කාරයෝ දුකය යන මේ ධර්මස්වභාවය ධර්මනියාමය ඇත්තේය.  (මේ ඡෙදය මේ සූත්‍රයේ 2 ඡෙදය මෙනි.)  “මහණෙනි, තථාගතයන් උපන්කල හෝ නූපන් කල හෝ සියලු සංස්කාරයෝ අනාත්මයහ යන ධර්මස්වභාවය ධර්මනියාමය ඇත්තේමය.

My understanding is correct. What Buddha states is that the nature of those dhamma exists whether or not Buddha exists. In other words, the nature of those dhamma exists when no human being has cognised those dhammas since only a Buddha cognises & reveals those dhammas.

Therefore, the nature exists but the dhamma themselves might seize to exists.

Your understanding of some scientific aspects is wrong. We do have a pretty clear idea of how the brain storages memory (we've even brought it to the molecular level and to neuron spin structure). Another quite common mistake is to say that the observer changes its surroundings and that the Schrödinger's cat is an example... That is simply not true. Quantum Mechanics proves and explains why observation changes a quantum state, but first you must understand what "observation" means. It is not a vague term: it means interaction with a classical quantity (i.e, non-quantized), not with a person.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

If you want to study Buddhism from a scientific perspective, you have to follow the evolutionary approach. Human thinking follows an evolutionary process. Religion and philosophy, like political and economic thoughts, have their origin in simpler thoughts of older societies.
Buddhism has evolved out of Hinduism, from the thoughts of Upanishads: Upanishads are philosophies of individual teachers .
These ideas of Upanishads were later systematized and classified, for teaching the basic principles of Hindu philosophy to students. There are six schools of Hindu philosophy, namely: Sankhya; Yoga; Nyaya; Vaisheshika; Purva Mmansa; and Uttara Mimansa.
Uttara Mimansa (also known as Advaita Vedanta) is the source of Buddhist Philosophy.
Advaita Vedanta developed as an attempt to combine the ideas of Sankhya, Yoga and Nyaya systems of philosophies:

Nyaya system is pure logic, from which mathematics has evolved
Sankhya system is natural science -- application of logic and mathematics to study nature, and discover laws of nature and laws of astronomy
Yoga system is study of human psychology.

It is less difficult to use logic and mathematics to study the physical universe, and discover laws governing the material universe. It is much more difficult to combine laws of psychology to formulas of mathematics and laws of the material universe -- to create a comprehensive, long lasting, universally accepted philosophy. Buddhism is one such attempt: which tries to integrate logic, psychology, and laws of material universe.
"Human needs are infinite, but human capacity is finite" is one law of psychology. Human life is finite, but humans want infinite life, eternal life or immortality. It is not possible to find any mathematical formula or scientific law, which can make humans materialize this desire, but there is an incessant demand for it -- from kings and emperors to the Common man and beggars.
Philosophers will have to make a compromise, to satisfy this need: otherwise, people will go to frauds and fake prophets to satisfy this need.

Buddhism was born out of the Sramana movement in India. There were 6 or so Sramana schools during the time of the Buddha. See Wikipedia entry on Sramana.  The Ajivika and the Charvaka schools denied the Karma theory whereas the other schools including Jainism and Buddhism adopted this concept. It is interesting to note that all the Sramana schools had one thing in common - deny a creator God. I speculate that Buddha may have been forced to accept the Karma theory because of the prevailing societal conditions, but had no way of reconciling this with the Anatman theory.
Having said that, there were some scientific endeavors in the study of reincarnation - Ian Stevenson had conducted extensive research into reincarnation, but has been met with a lot of skepticism. I suppose it is extremely difficult to prove rebirth from a scientific viewpoint as it involves repeatable experiments, which is not possible in this case.

The criticism I read of Stevenson's work is that his methodology had no way to disprove the hypothesis that reincarnation exists.

First of all, I'd like to say I'm a scientist. This means fact will always come before faith, even if it hurts.

Nothing hurts the Buddha. Unlike scientists, most of whom are so crazy that they create atomic weapons & other evil things, the Buddha was fully enlightened with perfect peace.

I'd therefore like to know passages from suttas where Buddha affirms that knowledge of past lives is unattainable

I am not aware of any such passages. The suttas refer to recollecting past abodes or adherences, which means recollecting in the past when the mind ignorantly regarded one or more of the five aggregates to be 'self'. If your mind is intelligent enough, it can read about it in SN 22.79.

or at least where He elucidates reincarnation is not something
  causal.

The Pali suttas do not contain any systemic explanations of 'reincarnation' (despite the misinterpretations of most 'Buddhists' about dependent origination & other teachings). That is why later-day Buddhists invented their own ideas about reincarnation, such as 'relinking consciousness; mind-stream; storehouse consciousness; bardo', etc.
That said, there are some later-day suttas that refer to literal past lives, such as AN 3.15, MN 50, MN 81, MN 123 & MN 143, however they provide no explanation about how this literal reincarnation occurred. These suttas are similar to later-day 'Jataka' thus is seems unlikely, even impossible, the Lord Buddha spoke them.
Note: These reincarnation suttas contradict other suttas, such as SN 22.79, MN 64, etc.

If there aren't any, why do people still believing in this concept?

Craving.

Only because they feel safer?

Yes, Einstein.