Can I still consider myself a "Buddhist" if I don't believe in reincarnation??

Correct me if I'm wrong about my current understanding of Buddhism: There is no eternal self or essence in me, but I am just a conditioned-self, an illusion created by the interaction of the five aggregates. Each time I do something, or will something, its this distorted conditioned-self in play, right? Now, I want to understand what happens to this conditioned self when we die. You say its just an *illusion*, but lets take a practical example: A person dies in New York, and then is being reborn in Washington D.C the next moment. So here, you want to say the conditioned-self (illusion) travelled all the way from New York to D.C. to affect his/her next birth? As a corollary to this question, I would also like to understand the technicality of kamma. Say a person violates the precept of non-killing in New York in his/her present birth. How does the kamma know whom to punish 50 years later when that same person is reborn in D.C.? (You may say here that there is no external law-maker, but kamma is just in our minds. But that's still begging the question - *How does it know whom to punish 50 years later?*)

A few years ago, I read in the introduction of a Spirituality book about this story of Gautam Buddha. I've forgotten the name of the book, but this poetry has stuck in my memory for ever. The story goes something like this: *The young prince Siddhartha is sitting in the garden, having felt disgusted by the vanity of the celebrations going on in the palace. That's when he hears a group of celestial beings passing by singing melodious choirs:* > *We Know not whence we come,* > *nor where we float away* > *Time and again, we tread this round, of smiles and tears* > *In vain we pine to know* > *whither our pathway leads* > *And why we play this empty play* Each time I remember or reflect upon this choir, I get a profound feeling of anicca. I know that even thinking about this is also a sign of attachment, as even those thoughts are impermanent. But is it wrong to get energized or inspired by a choir, even if the inspiration is towards the path of enlightenment? As a side note, has such an anecdote really happened with Gautam Buddha? Is there such a mention in any suttas?

I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and while I am personally very comfortable with the organisation and its values, it has been criticised for a lack of lineage. Generally speaking how important is lineage in Buddhism? Do some schools take it very seriously and others less so? If a school has a shaky or unclear lineage is that seen as a bad thing? If so then why? What does lineage give Buddhism?

I want to accept the Noble Eightfold Path (somewhere it is 10). I know what I can do. I know how many positive possibilities are surging inside me to come out. I know I am all alone to mark my words by adapting everything that I say. By breathing and watching my beloved resting I feel so relaxed. I want to share this feeling with everyone. Do I really need to devote my life to the Noble Eightfold Path? Life as it seems is not that bad, even without the Eightfold Path. Is it necessary to adapt whatever I read in Buddhism? Can one reciprocrate what he/she has never read before? (My English isn't much good, I am learning. I welcome you (especially Andrei with his best guess and Crab Bucket) if they can improve the question.

In Mahayana, how do Bodhisattvas help others get enlightened? Do they do it by teaching, just like Gautama Buddha did, or by some other means?

Leading on from this answer - is it true that ultimately most or even all non-monastic lifestyles are wrong livelihood. Not being a monk I find this point of view quite challenging but just because I don't like it doesn't stop it from being true. Also I suspect that this might differ between traditions so if the school that the answer comes from can be highlighted in the answer that would be really helpful.

In some of his books Lama Ole Nydahl claims that the prosperity of certain region is determined (among other things) by the Karma of people living there. That is, people in Switzerland (or Silicon Valley) have, on average, a better Karma than inhabitants of poor, war-torn countries. Imagine that the latter want to improve the situation: Gradually (over several decades or even centuries) build up good Karma so that the life in those regions becomes better (turn Sierra Leone into an African Silicon Valley, for example). Also, there is plenty of evidence that economic measures alone often don't fight poverty effectively, so why not trying out a Buddhist approach to economic development? I assume that there are some publicly available teachings on how the average Karma of a region can be improved. What are they and where can I find them?

Does breeding and selling dogs fit into right livelihood provided that you make a concerted effort to make sure the animals find homes with responsible owners? --- **Edit**: Thanks for the answers so far. I am especially interested in answers that are rooted in the Pali Canon. There are two relevant suttas that I found: 1. The [Vanijja Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html) 2. The [Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.nara.html) However, it seems like there is dispute about how to translate and understand the relevant passages. Any answers that specifically address these issues would be appreciated.

Who would have the better handle on how the true nature of reality is organised? For example what karma actually is and and how we discharge our obligations towards it; our free will in selecting a new incarnation. Logic dictates that the more insightful answers come from those who can communicate directly with the spirit world as psychic mediums can. The true role of the Buddhist Monk surely is to facilitate peace on Earth rather than to pontificate on the technicalities of the afterlife. This point by the way is not to denigrate the efforts of Buddhist monks, whom I have the greatest respect for.

I've been learning lately about Buddhism and I have several questions about it. I haven't actually read any of the sacred books, just some stuff on the internet and now I'm reading What Makes You Not a Buddhist as an intro to Buddhism, so I might have some misconceptions about it. So let's get to the questions: 1) In What Makes You Not a Buddhist the author says that asking a Buddhist about the meaning of life is inappropriate because it implies that somewhere there's a final purpose of being. Do Buddhists believe that there's no purpose in living? And if there is, what is it based upon. Where is the motivation to do anything if it isn't building up to something? Why be good/smart/compassionate/... ? And why not commit a suicide instead of learning and understanding things so that you don't suffer - wouldn't that be faster? 2) If I understand correctly Buddhism says that we don't exist, we're just made up of different parts and our conception of ourselves is just an illusion. But if Descartes was right when he said "I think, therefore I am.", then I don't see how that works with Buddhism - someone here must be wrong (I think). Do Buddhists believe that there's no essence that is "me" (like soul in Christianity), just random parts connected together in a certain point of time? If yes, then what is that thing that thought of the illusion of existing(Is it our mind? Does it also not exist?)? 3) One of the four seals is: All compounded things are impermanent. In the book author says that all things are compounded so saying "All things are impermanent" is equivalent. How is that even possible if anything we understand about the world is true? Everything is made out of atoms and atoms are made out of subatomic particles and perhaps those are made out of sub subatomic particles and so on (I don't know), but in the end, there must be a basic building block that makes those things and that's bound to be constant. It's hard for me to understand how everything could be a compounded because that means that it's made out of smaller things put together. But if those things are also compounded, this process goes on infinitely. But there's no infinity in nature. I'll really appreciate the answers. EDIT: Thank you all for the great answers. They really helped me understand some things better. Because I hate deciding on which answer is the best, I'll let the community do it - after some time I'll pick the one with most upvotes.

Apocarteresis is a form of suicide where a person stops taking food and/or water. Now, I want to make it very clear that **I have no intention of committing suicide anytime soon**. However, as the Buddha taught, old age, illness and death are part of life. I believe that the most dreadful thing is not the disease itself or even death, it is my experience that in some countries (for legal reasons) doctors will insist in keeping patients alive when it would be compassionate to let the disease take its own course. I am relatively young now, and healthy. Again, **I have no desire to die soon**. However, having witnessed my grandfather's unnecessarily protracted death, I would rather not leave my life in the hands of overzealous doctors come the time. On the other hand, I would want to avoid causing suffering and accumulating kamma with an unskillful act of death. How is apocartheresis as a form of euthanasia viewed within Buddhism in cases of terminal illness?

In which pali canon texts does the Buddha mention a craving for nonexistence? I'm just curious to see what it means in its wider context. I suspect its mentioned in a number of different places but any reference will be good.

I'm trying to find a specific story in where the Buddha spoke about the attainment of one Anagami lay person with a group of monks while praising his good qualities. Later, when those monks went for alms at his place, they informed him that the Buddha had spoken about his attainment. Then he asked the monks, if there were any lay persons present when the Buddha revealed it. The monks reported this back to the Buddha when they returned to the temple. Then the Buddha praised him again and said that is also another good quality of him. I've heard this story several times in sermons, when the question comes up, whether an enlightened being would reveal his attainment to others.

I am seeking a proper guide on Buddhist funeral process in India. What are the things needs to be taken care while performing the last Ceremony With Metta

Can *lokuttara citta's* be defined as the true knowing essence (yathabhuta nana dassana)?

Did the Buddha ever say anything about monastics finding "loopholes" in the rules? A loophole would be something like: Showering when bathing is not allowed or living in a building when the opposite sex lives in the building also but as long as the monastic is outside the building for a certain period of time every day the monastic can not be said to be living there. Also what are some of these possible loopholes?

Is there a difference between sunatta and anatta? if so, which is the difference?

Any authentic sutta or part of sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of sexual relationship partner to choose? I'm thinking the Vimalikirti sutra should say something about such layman concerns. Specifically things like what kind of partner would an ideal layman choose for family purposes if choose at all? Should one find a companion who already understands the Dharma and is thus highly capable of being a companion and teacher to children? Or is the proper bodhisattva action to practice the dana paramita by bonding and inspiring someone who lacks the dharma--but is ready to receive it--and thus help to transform their karma as well as the whole universe's (through increasing Dharma quotient in a "lower denominator")? [The Taoist tradition (which I highly honor) has some insights into this matter and for me is very connected to Buddhism and according to my learning would imply that a cultivated woman choose the latter and a cultivated man choose the former.]

I am developing an application which calculates peoples age/ birthdays. In this app I have one entry for the Dalai Lama. My understanding is that its the 14 Dalai Lama who is alive right now. So a concern is raised that should I use the name Dalai Lama or 14 Dalai Lama I want to know if there can be two Dalai Lamas alive at the same instance if this is not true I can simply use the name Dalai Lama Please shed light on this aspect!