Claim 1 of 5 · Case 14 · Buddhism
Buddhism’s teaching of no-self sits in real tension with its teaching of karma and rebirth, a difficulty recognized within Buddhism itself.
One claim from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
This is a fair question to raise, gently, from inside the system. If there is no enduring self, then who suffers, who receives the results of karma, and who continues through rebirth? Buddhism insists suffering is real and that actions carry forward, yet it denies a stable subject to whom any of that belongs. You need continuity for karma and rebirth to make sense, but you deny continuity to escape attachment. This is a genuine strain, not a cheap shot, and Buddhism has thoughtful answers, so it’s worth treating as an open question, not a verdict.
Backed by 2 pieces of evidence
Thanissaro Bhikkhu, “No-self or Not-self?”
A respected Buddhist monk raises the question himself, so it is an in-house question, not an imported complaint, and his resolution is presented whole. What remains even on his reading is the question the next exhibit puts: what carries moral desert from one life to the next, and can a causal stream with no owner support the full weight of karma?
The Buddhist answer from dependent origination and the mind-stream
This is the competing explanation, stated fairly. The question worth weighing is whether a causal stream with no owner can carry moral responsibility and justice, or whether calling the stream “you” quietly smuggles a self back in. Put simply: who is it that gets free?