user471: How would Secular Buddhists and other Buddhists who reject rebirth, interpret the following suttas, which describe:

An ocean of tears?
Everyone being someone we have know in the past?


From Assu Sutta (SN15.3):

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
  beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident,
  though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are
  transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is
  greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this
  long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in
  the four great oceans?"
"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is
  the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering
  this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in
  the four great oceans."
"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand
  the Dhamma taught by me.
"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating &
  wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not
  the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The
  tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating &
  wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are
  greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the
  death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son...
  the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with
  regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have
  shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering
  this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than
  the water in the four great oceans.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
  beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released."

I think that rebirth scenarios are usually explained as different states of mind e.g. animalistic state of mind for animal rebirth -- but how could tears the size of an ocean and everyone being someone that we have known in the past, be explained in this way?
This sutta seem to make sense only if rebirth was actually true.

Similarly from Mata Sutta (SN15.14-19):

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
  beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident,
  though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are
  transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at
  one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been
  your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your
  daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
  beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released."

How would you explain everyone being someone that we have known in the past?

user7309: What is secular Buddhism? Are we defining any Buddhism that takes the Pali canon as only a beginning to truth, with any additional changes or perceived refinements as secular? Or are we wading into the difference between ideologies that contain religion/spirituality/faith and ones that don't? (For example, AN 4.95 would certainly question the bodhisattva goal of the Mahayana as a primary concern of the path, both as a refinement of scripture and as a change in the spiritual nature of the path, but it would not be called free of religion/faith)
The Buddha presented core ideas that define Buddhism. The linking of truth to direct experiential observation, anicca, anatta, the Four Noble Truths including the Noble Eightfold Path are a good start (and all should at least agree that this is at least the spirit of the teaching, if not the exact letter). 
What aspects of secular thought come up against and stand to strip away aspects of the teaching?
The idea that modern secularism is a-religious and ideology free (the two words are parallel imo - both aim to define a complete, but not necessarily accurate, world view) is inaccurate. The secular world is rife with ideology and people adhering only to their ideology. Killing people in the name of/for some convoluted form of representative democracy is little more than engaging in that time old dualistic ideology of 'us and them', as one example. Modern thought is rife with philosophical ideology/sophistry, and rejecting rebirth seems to often happen because of some past uncomfortable brush with similar-sounding ideas, as a personally ideological move, not based on reason or evidence with regards to the exact concept that is being rejected, imo. 
In addition, whilst rejecting ideology in spirit, but keeping it in the letter, rational secular thought has forgotten reasonable faith entirely. Reasonable faith here being the limited faith that the Buddha asked for - the faith that is gained from direct experience of aspects of the teaching (say anicca at first), leading to a faith that as yet unreached/not-comprehended aspects of the teaching should not be abandoned solely out of personal opinion, at least not until one experiences the contradiction directly. Buddhism asks for no more than a faith in a less numerically defined hypothesis test. Currently though, secular Buddhism doesn't follow MN27.
More directly, there is no interpretation of 'an ocean of tears' that can be contrived to not mean what it means.. It would also be a contrivance. One could argue that rebirth as a whole was added later to the texts, or misinterpreted, but that beings arise spontaneously is part of mundane right view. It would lead to a deep suspicions of the post-Buddha Sangha (and all that follows really), if  such core aspects of the teaching of the Dhamma were so easily changed.
'Everybody' being related to 'someone'.. at 'sometime'.. is a statement that both requires Self and dilutes Self (broadens Self to all conscious Samsara, or even all Samsara), as well as being too broad to provide any useful information: 'Physics is everything, everywhere' doesn't say much about physics, or everything, or everywhere. All this shows me is that making concrete, definitive statements about a process whose range of action is unlimited within Samsara leads to needing to make linguistically empty (tautological) or contradictory statements. 
What can be accepted in place of Buddhist rebirth?
Buddhism without rebirth - rebirth as a basic process that runs through Samsara as a whole - is Buddhism with death within Samsara. Buddhism with death is Buddhism with dukkha. 
Rebirth as a concept that, using Western language, is not completely deterministic (MN135, and just because otherwise anatta is out). It is also not completely in-deterministic (otherwise kamma, the law of the regularity of action (not unlike Newton's third), is out). Neither Self nor irregularity (arbitrary, a-mathematical irregularity) are evident within direct experience, on any scale. This is true for the secular scientific method too, as like Buddhism, it allocates truth in concordance with observation/measurement. 
QM Interpretations offer the least convoluted scientific/secular take on what actuality is considered to be.. not by all people - Einstein famously thought QM to be an intermediary explanation of motion, hiding a completely deterministic one below its surface.. Evidence against hidden variable/local realism is a strong experimental argument for QM being the base laws of motion within Samsara.
Choose your secularist for what their interpretation is! Many lay science people fall towards the deterministic Multiverse hypothesis. It is also a neat one for imagery. 'An ocean of tears' is a perfectly reasonable volume to cry if approximately every 10^10^58 years I come back and experience my impermanence (the logic of impermanence breaks down as this is a deterministic interpretation of QM).
A secular Buddhist would have to accept the relational interpretation though (6% of QM scientists accept this interpretation atm, which given 500m/7.5bn people are Buddhist, just about covers the Buddhist portion!). There are no observer independent (self-referential) objects/properties, just like for Nagarjuna (wave function is not 'real' independent of observation). It is neither deterministic nor non-deterministic (what are you determining, on the whole, given anatta?). There is no unique history (which agrees with the ultimate lack of distinction/uniqueness within anatta, and the Buddha's discussion on the fact that the law of kamma is not completely 'linear'). 
Dependent origination is relational quantum mechanics, relational quantum mechanics is dependent origination. But unlike for the Multiverse interpretation, there is no simple 'ground', or world-line, from which to concretely conceive of 'one's own' rebirth path. 
Finally, what is 'secular'? If secularism is moving away from observer independent ideology such as God or Absolute Time (not just religion in the narrow sense), then the Western scientific method is secular in that it consciously aims for its truths to be rooted in observation/measurement. But the Buddha's method is a scientific method too: a doctor who limits their truths to only those that can be verified observationally, is a scientist. Buddhism, being ideology free at its heart, is scientific and secular. 

471: <p>How would Secular Buddhists and other Buddhists who reject rebirth, interpret the following suttas, which describe:</p>

<ol>
<li>An ocean of tears?</li>
<li>Everyone being someone we have know in the past?</li>
</ol>

<hr>

<p>From <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Assu Sutta (SN15.3)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
  beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident,
  though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are
  transmigrating &amp; wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is
  greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating &amp; wandering this
  long, long time — crying &amp; weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in
  the four great oceans?"</p>
  
  <p>"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is
  the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating &amp; wandering
  this long, long time — crying &amp; weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in
  the four great oceans."</p>
  
  <p>"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand
  the Dhamma taught by me.</p>
  
  <p>"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating &amp;
  wandering this long, long time — crying &amp; weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not
  the water in the four great oceans.</p>
  
  <p>"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The
  tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating &amp;
  wandering this long, long time — crying &amp; weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are
  greater than the water in the four great oceans.</p>
  
  <p>"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the
  death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son...
  the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with
  regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have
  shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating &amp; wandering
  this long, long time — crying &amp; weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than
  the water in the four great oceans.</p>
  
  <p>"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
  beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating &amp; wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think that rebirth scenarios are usually explained as different states of mind e.g. animalistic state of mind for animal rebirth -- but how could tears the size of an ocean and everyone being someone that we have known in the past, be explained in this way?</p>

<p>This sutta seem to make sense only if rebirth was actually true.</p>

<hr>

<p>Similarly from <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.014.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mata Sutta (SN15.14-19)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
  beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident,
  though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are
  transmigrating &amp; wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at
  one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been
  your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your
  daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.</p>
  
  <p>"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
  beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating &amp; wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>How would you explain everyone being someone that we have known in the past?</p>
 7309: <p>What is secular Buddhism? Are we defining any Buddhism that takes the Pali canon as only a beginning to truth, with any additional changes or perceived refinements as secular? Or are we wading into the difference between ideologies that contain religion/spirituality/faith and ones that don't? (For example, <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.95" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 4.95</a> would certainly question the bodhisattva goal of the Mahayana as a primary concern of the path, both as a refinement of scripture and as a change in the spiritual nature of the path, but it would not be called free of religion/faith)</p>

<p>The Buddha presented core ideas that define Buddhism. The linking of truth to direct experiential observation, anicca, anatta, the Four Noble Truths including the Noble Eightfold Path are a good start (and all should at least agree that this is at least the spirit of the teaching, if not the exact letter). </p>

<p>What aspects of secular thought come up against and stand to strip away aspects of the teaching?</p>

<p>The idea that modern secularism is a-religious and ideology free (the two words are parallel imo - both aim to define a complete, but not necessarily accurate, world view) is inaccurate. The secular world is rife with ideology and people adhering only to their ideology. Killing people in the name of/for some convoluted form of representative democracy is little more than engaging in that time old dualistic ideology of 'us and them', as one example. Modern thought is rife with philosophical ideology/sophistry, and rejecting rebirth seems to often happen because of some past uncomfortable brush with similar-sounding ideas, as a personally ideological move, not based on reason or evidence with regards to the exact concept that is being rejected, imo. </p>

<p>In addition, whilst rejecting ideology in spirit, but keeping it in the letter, rational secular thought has forgotten reasonable faith entirely. Reasonable faith here being the limited faith that the Buddha asked for - the faith that is gained from direct experience of aspects of the teaching (say anicca at first), leading to a faith that as yet unreached/not-comprehended aspects of the teaching should not be abandoned solely out of personal opinion, at least not until one experiences the contradiction directly. Buddhism asks for no more than a faith in a less numerically defined hypothesis test. Currently though, secular Buddhism doesn't follow <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/mn27" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN27</a>.</p>

<p>More directly, there is no interpretation of 'an ocean of tears' that can be contrived to not mean what it means.. It would also be a contrivance. One could argue that rebirth as a whole was added later to the texts, or misinterpreted, but that beings arise spontaneously is part of mundane right view. It would lead to a deep suspicions of the post-Buddha Sangha (and all that follows really), if  such core aspects of the teaching of the Dhamma were so easily changed.</p>

<p>'Everybody' being related to 'someone'.. at 'sometime'.. is a statement that both requires Self and dilutes Self (broadens Self to all conscious Samsara, or even all Samsara), as well as being too broad to provide any useful information: 'Physics is everything, everywhere' doesn't say much about physics, or everything, or everywhere. All this shows me is that making concrete, definitive statements about a process whose range of action is unlimited within Samsara leads to needing to make linguistically empty (tautological) or contradictory statements. </p>

<p>What can be accepted in place of Buddhist rebirth?</p>

<p>Buddhism without rebirth - rebirth as a basic process that runs through Samsara as a whole - is Buddhism with death within Samsara. Buddhism with death is Buddhism with dukkha. </p>

<p>Rebirth as a concept that, using Western language, is not completely deterministic (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN135</a>, and just because otherwise anatta is out). It is also not completely in-deterministic (otherwise kamma, the law of the regularity of action (not unlike Newton's third), is out). Neither Self nor irregularity (arbitrary, a-mathematical irregularity) are evident within direct experience, on any scale. This is true for the secular scientific method too, as like Buddhism, it allocates truth in concordance with observation/measurement. </p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">QM Interpretations</a> offer the least convoluted scientific/secular take on what actuality is considered to be.. not by all people - Einstein famously thought QM to be an intermediary explanation of motion, hiding a completely deterministic one below its surface.. <a href="https://phys.org/news/2017-07-probability-quantum-world-local-realism.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Evidence against hidden variable/local realism</a> is a strong experimental argument for QM being the base laws of motion within Samsara.</p>

<p>Choose your secularist for what their interpretation is! Many lay science people fall towards the deterministic Multiverse hypothesis. It is also a neat one for imagery. 'An ocean of tears' is a perfectly reasonable volume to cry if approximately every 10^10^58 years I come back and experience my impermanence (the logic of impermanence breaks down as this is a deterministic interpretation of QM).</p>

<p>A secular Buddhist would have to accept the relational interpretation though (6% of QM scientists accept this interpretation atm, which given 500m/7.5bn people are Buddhist, just about covers the Buddhist portion!). There are no observer independent (self-referential) objects/properties, just like for Nagarjuna (wave function is not 'real' independent of observation). It is neither deterministic nor non-deterministic (what are you determining, on the whole, given anatta?). There is no unique history (which agrees with the ultimate lack of distinction/uniqueness within anatta, and the Buddha's discussion on the fact that the law of kamma is not completely 'linear'). </p>

<p>Dependent origination is relational quantum mechanics, relational quantum mechanics is dependent origination. But unlike for the Multiverse interpretation, there is no simple 'ground', or world-line, from which to concretely conceive of 'one's own' rebirth path. </p>

<p>Finally, what is 'secular'? If secularism is moving away from observer independent ideology such as God or Absolute Time (not just religion in the narrow sense), then the Western scientific method is secular in that it consciously aims for its truths to be rooted in observation/measurement. But the Buddha's method is a scientific method too: a doctor who limits their truths to only those that can be verified observationally, is a scientist. Buddhism, being ideology free at its heart, is scientific and secular. </p>
