user21235: Yes, I have seen the similar questions. But they do not satisfyingly answer my own since my question is slightly different. Let me explain:
I was reading up on Emptiness, Samsara and so on and found out that there is no individual soul or energy that reincarnates. Rather, it is like a candle lighting another whereby the wax of the new candle is different and has nothing in common with the previous candle.
And I see that this image does not contradict (if there is no soul how can there be rebirth?) the theme of rebirth when looked at it this way.
But I was wondering about one thing:
If there is no individual, eternal essence (like the Atman in Hinduism) that is liberated wouldn't that mean that life would go extinct at a certain point? I mean if I understand the Buddha correctly we all return to the one "collective", true essence that he called the unborn, unchanging etc...
Doesn't that mean that at the point where all beings were liberated life would cease to exist?
So my question is why did he teach to free oneself from rebirth when looked at it from the perspective I tried to describe?
Come to think of it the Buddha seemingly never answered questions of the origins or the fundamental workings of the universe. For example I know he was once asked what would happen to a fully enlightened Buddha after death.
To my knowledge he would answer questions like this saying that it was meaningless to ask such things.
Did the Buddha know something about the non-self or the universe that he purposefully never taught? Is the goal of a sentient being to join the "one soul/ground of being" that is the unborn? But why? Is it bliss to cease to exist and join a "homogenous mass of energy"?
Why is it important to sever the karmic cycle if it is obvious that this is the way in which the universe manifests itself? In my opinion the universe manifesting as this myriad life forms is a joyous loving act and the whole point of the cosmic energy. I'm confused since I read that part about the Buddha's teachings...

user13375: The doctrine of non-self applies and is equally true and valid for all of the three times: the past, the present, and the future. Your questions presuppose that there is a difference in the manner and extent of the fact of rebirth from moment-to-moment in this very life vs from life-to-life. They also presuppose that the doctrine of non-self is similarly different in manner and extent from moment-to-moment in this very life vs from life-to-life.
You have the correct conception of the doctrine of non-self teaching that there is no soul or essence to be found in the person. While this is true, I think you've drawn the unwarranted conclusion that the self in this very life is therefore equated with the body. You believe that it is the body that continues in this very life from moment-to-moment and therefore with the death and the breakup of the body it is hard for you to understand how there can be further rebirth. However, the doctrine of non-self does not imply this conclusion. Equating the body with the self is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of non-self.
I would encourage you to first stop and think about this very life. The doctrine of non-self and rebirth both apply to your everyday momentary existence. Is it true, then, that your moment-to-moment existence is well characterized by, "Rather, it is like a candle lighting another whereby the wax of the new candle is different and has nothing in common with the previous candle?" Does your current momentary existence truly have nothing in common with your previous momentary existence??
So if the self is not to be equated with the body (how could it be since the body you have at birth has not one atom in common with the body you have as a dying old person?), then how does the self exist? Does it not exist?? If it does exist, then in what fashion? How is it that rebirth of this self happens from moment-to-moment in this very life?
There is a wealth of understanding to be had by seriously considering the above questions just focusing on this very life. I contend that if you truly understand the answers to these questions in an unmistaken manner, then your questions about rebirth and emptiness from life-to-life will no longer arise.

UPDATE: Some attempts to answer the questions directly:
"If there is no individual, eternal essence (like the Atman in Hinduism) that is liberated wouldn't that mean that life would go extinct at a certain point?"
No, it does not mean this. Just as life continues in this very life even though all of us lack an essential self, it will not go extinct upon the true recognition of this very fact.
"I mean if I understand the Buddha correctly we all return to the one "collective", true essence that he called the unborn, unchanging etc... Doesn't that mean that at the point where all beings were liberated life would cease to exist?"
No, it does not mean this. To the extent that we all have buddha-nature (which is what I assume you are trying to describe with talk of 'true essence'?) we all have it right now in this very instant. It is not something that is acquired. Thus, life will not cease to exist when this buddha-nature is cleared of all fabrications obscuring it.
"So my question is why did he teach to free oneself from rebirth when looked at it from the perspective I tried to describe?"
He taught the Holy Dharma out of compassion for all sentient beings stuck in this unsatisfactory cyclic-existence.
"Did the Buddha know something about the non-self or the universe that he purposefully never taught? Is the goal of a sentient being to join the "one soul/ground of being" that is the unborn? But why? Is it bliss to cease to exist and join a "homogenous mass of energy"?"
No, the Buddha withheld no medicine from sentient beings. He did however prescribe different medicine for different individuals based on their particular manifestation of ailments. There is no cessation of existence! This is the view of annihilationism that the Buddha emphatically denounced!
"Why is it important to sever the karmic cycle if it is obvious that this is the way in which the universe manifests itself?"
This is explained as the first noble truth.
"I guess my question is what happens after the death of a fully enlightened being such as Shakyamuni? Since it was his last rebirth what happens after? Does he simply merge again with the unborn? Did the Buddha ever address himself to that?"
To some audiences he refused to answer or countenance such questions. This is because they were not ready for such powerful medicine. However, to other audiences, he did broach such questions and gave powerful medicine to sentient beings. The primary place you will find the answer to such things is in the Second and Third turning of the Wheel of Dharma. To take this medicine it is important that you have a very firm grounding in the foundations of Dharma practice and faith in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.

user21314: rebirth consists of new moments in our life being produced by previous moments functioned as causes.
the final moment of mind in this lifetime functions as a cause for the first moment of mind in the next life.
this process continues due to misapprehing an enduring self-sufficient self to your person.
persons exist.  an impossible self does not exist.

21235: <p>Yes, I have seen the similar questions. But they do not satisfyingly answer my own since my question is slightly different. Let me explain:</p>
<p>I was reading up on Emptiness, Samsara and so on and found out that there is no individual soul or energy that reincarnates. Rather, it is like a candle lighting another whereby the wax of the new candle is different and has nothing in common with the previous candle.
And I see that this image does not contradict (if there is no soul how can there be rebirth?) the theme of rebirth when looked at it this way.
But I was wondering about one thing:</p>
<p>If there is no individual, eternal essence (like the Atman in Hinduism) that is liberated wouldn't that mean that life would go extinct at a certain point? I mean if I understand the Buddha correctly we all return to the one &quot;collective&quot;, true essence that he called the unborn, unchanging etc...
Doesn't that mean that at the point where all beings were liberated life would cease to exist?</p>
<p>So my question is why did he teach to free oneself from rebirth when looked at it from the perspective I tried to describe?
Come to think of it the Buddha seemingly never answered questions of the origins or the fundamental workings of the universe. For example I know he was once asked what would happen to a fully enlightened Buddha after death.
To my knowledge he would answer questions like this saying that it was meaningless to ask such things.</p>
<p>Did the Buddha know something about the non-self or the universe that he purposefully never taught? Is the goal of a sentient being to join the &quot;one soul/ground of being&quot; that is the unborn? But why? Is it bliss to cease to exist and join a &quot;homogenous mass of energy&quot;?</p>
<p>Why is it important to sever the karmic cycle if it is obvious that this is the way in which the universe manifests itself? In my opinion the universe manifesting as this myriad life forms is a joyous loving act and the whole point of the cosmic energy. I'm confused since I read that part about the Buddha's teachings...</p>
 13375: <p>The doctrine of non-self applies and is equally true and valid for all of the three times: the past, the present, and the future. Your questions presuppose that there is a difference in the manner and extent of the fact of rebirth from moment-to-moment in this very life vs from life-to-life. They also presuppose that the doctrine of non-self is similarly different in manner and extent from moment-to-moment in this very life vs from life-to-life.</p>
<p>You have the correct conception of the doctrine of non-self teaching that there is no soul or essence to be found in the person. While this is true, I think you've drawn the unwarranted conclusion that the self in this very life is therefore equated with the body. You believe that it is <em>the body</em> that continues in this very life from moment-to-moment and therefore with the death and the breakup of the body it is hard for you to understand how there can be further rebirth. However, the doctrine of non-self does not imply this conclusion. Equating the body with the self is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of non-self.</p>
<p>I would encourage you to first stop and think about this very life. The doctrine of non-self and rebirth both apply to your everyday momentary existence. Is it true, then, that your moment-to-moment existence is well characterized by, &quot;Rather, it is like a candle lighting another whereby the wax of the new candle is different and has nothing in common with the previous candle?&quot; Does your current momentary existence truly have <em>nothing in common</em> with your previous momentary existence??</p>
<p>So if the self is not to be equated with the body (how could it be since the body you have at birth has not one atom in common with the body you have as a dying old person?), then how does the self exist? Does it not exist?? If it does exist, then in what fashion? How is it that rebirth of this self happens from moment-to-moment in this very life?</p>
<p>There is a wealth of understanding to be had by seriously considering the above questions just focusing on this very life. I contend that if you truly understand the answers to these questions in an unmistaken manner, then your questions about rebirth and emptiness from life-to-life will no longer arise.</p>
<hr />
<p>UPDATE: Some attempts to answer the questions directly:</p>
<p><strong>&quot;If there is no individual, eternal essence (like the Atman in Hinduism) that is liberated wouldn't that mean that life would go extinct at a certain point?&quot;</strong></p>
<p>No, it does not mean this. Just as life continues in this very life even though all of us lack an essential self, it will not go extinct upon the true recognition of this very fact.</p>
<p><strong>&quot;I mean if I understand the Buddha correctly we all return to the one &quot;collective&quot;, true essence that he called the unborn, unchanging etc... Doesn't that mean that at the point where all beings were liberated life would cease to exist?&quot;</strong></p>
<p>No, it does not mean this. To the extent that we all have <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature" rel="nofollow noreferrer">buddha-nature</a> (which is what I assume you are trying to describe with talk of 'true essence'?) we all have it right now in this very instant. It is not something that is acquired. Thus, life will not cease to exist when this buddha-nature is cleared of all fabrications obscuring it.</p>
<p><strong>&quot;So my question is why did he teach to free oneself from rebirth when looked at it from the perspective I tried to describe?&quot;</strong></p>
<p>He taught the Holy Dharma out of compassion for all sentient beings stuck in this unsatisfactory cyclic-existence.</p>
<p><strong>&quot;Did the Buddha know something about the non-self or the universe that he purposefully never taught? Is the goal of a sentient being to join the &quot;one soul/ground of being&quot; that is the unborn? But why? Is it bliss to cease to exist and join a &quot;homogenous mass of energy&quot;?&quot;</strong></p>
<p>No, the Buddha withheld no medicine from sentient beings. He did however prescribe different medicine for different individuals based on their particular manifestation of ailments. There is no cessation of existence! This is the view of annihilationism that the Buddha emphatically denounced!</p>
<p><strong>&quot;Why is it important to sever the karmic cycle if it is obvious that this is the way in which the universe manifests itself?&quot;</strong></p>
<p>This is explained as <a href="https://thubtenchodron.org/2009/11/true-suffering-reality/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the first noble truth.</a></p>
<p><strong>&quot;I guess my question is what happens after the death of a fully enlightened being such as Shakyamuni? Since it was his last rebirth what happens after? Does he simply merge again with the unborn? Did the Buddha ever address himself to that?&quot;</strong></p>
<p>To some audiences he refused to answer or countenance such questions. This is because they were not ready for such powerful medicine. However, to other audiences, he <em>did</em> broach such questions and gave powerful medicine to sentient beings. The primary place you will find the answer to such things is in the Second and Third turning of the Wheel of Dharma. To take this medicine it is important that you have a very firm grounding in the foundations of Dharma practice and faith in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.</p>
 21314: <p>rebirth consists of new moments in our life being produced by previous moments functioned as causes.</p>
<p>the final moment of mind in this lifetime functions as a cause for the first moment of mind in the next life.</p>
<p>this process continues due to misapprehing an enduring self-sufficient self to your person.</p>
<p>persons exist.  an impossible self does not exist.</p>
