user20761: Although I have read quite a lot of books about Buddhism, almost all of them were meant for the Western layman so I consider myself to be a beginner compared to most of you here. I hope you can forgive me for possible inaccuracies or inconsistencies in my question. I'm hoping to get answers from Buddhists firmly rooted in the tradition, although of course everyone is most welcome to share their points of view.
I have problems coming to terms with the seeming paradox between reincarnation and anatta. How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self? When searching online most answers refer to all phenomena being interdependent, empty and transient, which is fine, but basically comes down to a sort of Lion King's Circle of Life analogy (beautiful as this still is).
But this explanation fails to point out why karma also matters in Buddhism in relation to rebirth. If you are born in an animal's body, you are generally considered to have less karma in stock than when you are born in a happy Buddhist household (or in the Pure Land). How do rebirth and karma rhyme with the concept of anatta?
I understand that in your present life you could benefit significantly from pursuing a virtuous life and following the Noble Eightfold Path, and it could have a minute positive change for the world after you're gone, but can you also benefit substantially from living virtuous in your next life after the demise of your current body? If so, how?
I really appreciate the Buddhist tradition, but the above concepts currently seem contradictory to me. I hope someone can show me the way out of my maze.

user13375: Alas, the maze you spoke of is large and different people are stuck in different parts. That's why I asked,

"Forget for a moment the idea of reincarnation (or rebirth) from
life-to-life and instead concentrate on the situation in this very
life and apply the following three concepts: anatta, rebirth (from
moment-to-moment), and karma. In your mind, can they coexist together
without contradiction?"

to which you replied,

"If you see rebirth only from moment-to-moment I see they can coexist
together. If you see rebirth as in being born according to one's karma
or remembering past lives I currently don't see them coexisting
together logically."

Thanks! This helps to narrow down which part of the maze you are stuck in. I think your answer indicates that you believe there to be a material difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life. This is the root of your misconception.
To unravel this misconception, let's look at your questions in the context of rebirth from moment-to-moment.

"How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of
past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self?"

What's the big difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life? It is the death and break up of the body, yes? This tells me you are identifying the body as the self. That the body is somehow identified with or acts as a vessel for the soul/inherent-self that passes from moment-to-moment in this very life. That with the break up of the body at death you believe this soul/inherent-self is annihilated right along with the body. That having no more body the soul/self/atman is extinguished.
Believing such, you haven't truly dealt with the implications of anatta which says that no soul/self/atman can be found in the body or dependent upon the body. The truth is that no such soul/self/atman really exists. We perceive that it exists just like a magical illusion. This illusion continues on from moment-to-moment in this very life and it continues on from life-to-life to the very same extent and in the very same manner. If you believe that the illusion dies or is annihilated with the death and break up of the body, then you don't truly understand it to be an illusion at all! Rather, you are regarding the illusion as a real and genuine fact that has died with the break up of the body.
I would encourage you to think and meditate on anatta and rebirth from moment-to-moment and see if you can generate the same perception of a contradiction that you can so readily with rebirth from life-to-life. When you can perceive this seeming contradiction, then I propose you'll be that much closer to understanding the real meaning of anatta. It can be mind blowing :)

user471: What exactly is rebirth? And what exactly is death?
Most people take rebirth to be the rebirth of oneself into a new life. If we zoom further into what this means, this is the continuation of the same consciousness that is aware of its surroundings and its thoughts into a new body with a new identity and new life. The same consciousness from birth wandered through life till death, then it continues in a new life after rebirth.
The Buddha did not accept this view in MN 38:

The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
long time.”

The Buddha taught consciousness to be dependently originated.
This is elaborated further in the same sutta:

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition
dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on
the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned
as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose
and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness
arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as
tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body
and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is
reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the
particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns
dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns
dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns
dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns
dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire
burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire
burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too,
consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on
which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and
forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises
dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as
mind-consciousness.

Please also see this answer in which Damith explained:

Think of a stream of water. When you look at a single point in the
stream, you see many water droplets appear, exist, and disappear. Take
a single droplet out of it which passed by that point. If you
consider the past, present, and future of that droplet, you'll see a
stream. In reality, it's not the same droplet nor another droplet you
see in the past, present, and future. Stream of consciousness is
analogous to this example.

So MN 38 is a rejection of consciousness as being the eternal unchanging self that moves from life to life. It's not a rejection of the continuity of the stream of consciousness that is conditioned and changing.
So, is there such a thing as rebirth? Yes. But what is it?
It's not the rebirth of oneself, but it's the rebirth of one's self - not one's soul, but one's mental idea of a self (the idea 'I am the thinker' of Snp 4.14). It's not the rebirth of the individual, but it's the rebirth of individuality.
In SN 15.3 (below), the Buddha looks at YOU (the mental idea of self) and tells YOU that YOU have been reborn so many times and grieved the death of so many loved ones (which are more mental ideas classified relative to the mental idea of the self - see this question on papanca), that the volume of tears shed by YOU (the self) is more than the volume of water in all the oceans of the world combined. Also, a beginning to this samsara is inconstruable.
Every time this mental idea of a self is reborn, the situation of rebirth is based on past karma but fueled by craving and clinging. Thoughts, words and actions motivated by clinging and burning with passion, aversion and delusion, will result in negative repercussions, and vice versa. From moment to moment, rebirth of the mental idea of the self is fueled by craving, but the situation of rebirth is based on karma.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother...
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.

What is death? Of course, it is also the death of YOU, a self identity.
Then what is Parinibbana?
Well, there is such a thing as clinging aggregates. According to this answer, for a living arahant, when ignorance is uprooted, this breaks dependent origination, that ends craving, clinging and suffering. In the chain of dependent origination, clinging aggregates would also cease.
The living arahant according to Iti 44, attained nibbana with fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa), meaning the non-clinging aggregates are still functioning like glowing embers, although the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased.
Parinibbana is when the non-clinging aggregates stop functioning. This is nibbana without fuel remaining (anupadisesa) according to Iti 44.
What is difference between parinibbana and any other death? In the former, the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased. In the latter, the fires of passion, aversion and delusion keeps burning, the (mental idea of a) self is reborn and suffering continues.
A change of perspective is needed i.e. rebirth, birth, death, and parinibbana should not be linked to any permanent consciousness or identity. The first noble truth is that there is suffering. It's not there is my suffering or your suffering but simply there is suffering. This also relates to anatta (not self).
Also, think about the core teaching, sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self. There is no permanent consciousness or identity or individuality or self in all phenomena.

20761: <p>Although I have read quite a lot of books about Buddhism, almost all of them were meant for the Western layman so I consider myself to be a beginner compared to most of you here. I hope you can forgive me for possible inaccuracies or inconsistencies in my question. I'm hoping to get answers from Buddhists firmly rooted in the tradition, although of course everyone is most welcome to share their points of view.</p>
<p>I have problems coming to terms with the seeming paradox between reincarnation and anatta. How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self? When searching online most answers refer to all phenomena being interdependent, empty and transient, which is fine, but basically comes down to a sort of Lion King's Circle of Life analogy (beautiful as this still is).</p>
<p>But this explanation fails to point out why karma also matters in Buddhism in relation to rebirth. If you are born in an animal's body, you are generally considered to have less karma in stock than when you are born in a happy Buddhist household (or in the Pure Land). How do rebirth and karma rhyme with the concept of anatta?</p>
<p>I understand that in your present life you could benefit significantly from pursuing a virtuous life and following the Noble Eightfold Path, and it could have a minute positive change for the world after you're gone, but can you also benefit substantially from living virtuous in your next life after the demise of your current body? If so, how?</p>
<p>I really appreciate the Buddhist tradition, but the above concepts currently seem contradictory to me. I hope someone can show me the way out of my maze.</p>
 13375: <p>Alas, the maze you spoke of is large and different people are stuck in different parts. That's why I asked,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Forget for a moment the idea of reincarnation (or rebirth) from
life-to-life and instead concentrate on the situation in this very
life and apply the following three concepts: anatta, rebirth (from
moment-to-moment), and karma. In your mind, can they coexist together
without contradiction?&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>to which you replied,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;If you see rebirth only from moment-to-moment I see they can coexist
together. If you see rebirth as in being born according to one's karma
or remembering past lives I currently don't see them coexisting
together logically.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Thanks! This helps to narrow down which part of the maze you are stuck in. I think your answer indicates that you believe there to be a material difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life. This is the root of your misconception.</p>
<p>To unravel this misconception, let's look at your questions in the context of rebirth from moment-to-moment.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;How can there be rebirth (which could also include the remembrance of
past lives) when there is no soul or inherent self?&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What's the big difference between rebirth from moment-to-moment and rebirth from life-to-life? It is the death and break up of the body, yes? This tells me you are identifying the body as the self. That the body is somehow identified with or acts as a vessel for the soul/inherent-self that passes from moment-to-moment in this very life. That with the break up of the body at death you believe this soul/inherent-self is annihilated right along with the body. That having no more body the soul/self/atman is extinguished.</p>
<p>Believing such, you haven't truly dealt with the implications of <strong>anatta</strong> which says that no soul/self/atman can be found in the body or dependent upon the body. The truth is that no such soul/self/atman really exists. We perceive that it exists just like a magical illusion. This illusion continues on from moment-to-moment in this very life and it continues on from life-to-life to the very same extent and in the very same manner. If you believe that the illusion dies or is annihilated with the death and break up of the body, then you don't truly understand it to be an illusion at all! Rather, you are regarding the illusion as a real and genuine fact that has died with the break up of the body.</p>
<p>I would encourage you to think and meditate on anatta and rebirth from moment-to-moment and see if you can generate the same perception of a contradiction that you can so readily with rebirth from life-to-life. When you can perceive this seeming contradiction, then I propose you'll be that much closer to understanding the real meaning of anatta. It can be mind blowing :)</p>
 471: <p>What exactly is rebirth? And what exactly is death?</p>
<p>Most people take rebirth to be the rebirth of oneself into a new life. If we zoom further into what this means, this is the continuation of the same consciousness that is aware of its surroundings and its thoughts into a new body with a new identity and new life. The same consciousness from birth wandered through life till death, then it continues in a new life after rebirth.</p>
<p>The Buddha did not accept this view in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 38</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”</p>
<p>“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
through the round of rebirths, not another.”</p>
<p>“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”</p>
<p>“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
and there the result of good and bad actions.”</p>
<p>“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
long time.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Buddha taught consciousness to be dependently originated.</p>
<p>This is elaborated further in the same sutta:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition
dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on
the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned
as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose
and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness
arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as
tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body
and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when
consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is
reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the
particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns
dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns
dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns
dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns
dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire
burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire
burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too,
consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on
which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and
forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises
dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as
mind-consciousness.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Please also see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/30700/471">this answer</a> in which Damith explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Think of a stream of water. When you look at a single point in the
stream, you see many water droplets appear, exist, and disappear. Take
a single droplet out of it which passed by that point. If you
consider the past, present, and future of that droplet, you'll see a
stream. In reality, it's not the same droplet nor another droplet you
see in the past, present, and future. Stream of consciousness is
analogous to this example.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So MN 38 is a rejection of consciousness as being the eternal unchanging self that moves from life to life. It's not a rejection of the continuity of the stream of consciousness that is conditioned and changing.</p>
<p>So, is there such a thing as rebirth? Yes. But what is it?</p>
<p>It's not the rebirth of oneself, but it's the rebirth of one's self - not one's soul, but one's mental idea of a self (the idea 'I am the thinker' of <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.14.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Snp 4.14</a>). It's not the rebirth of the individual, but it's the rebirth of individuality.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 15.3</a> (below), the Buddha looks at YOU (the mental idea of self) and tells YOU that YOU have been reborn so many times and grieved the death of so many loved ones (which are more mental ideas classified relative to the mental idea of the self - see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/28981/471">this question</a> on papanca), that the volume of tears shed by YOU (the self) is more than the volume of water in all the oceans of the world combined. Also, a beginning to this samsara is inconstruable.</p>
<p>Every time this mental idea of a self is reborn, the situation of rebirth is based on past karma but fueled by craving and clinging. Thoughts, words and actions motivated by clinging and burning with passion, aversion and delusion, will result in negative repercussions, and vice versa. From moment to moment, rebirth of the mental idea of the self is fueled by craving, but the situation of rebirth is based on karma.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother...
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>
</blockquote>
<p>What is death? Of course, it is also the death of YOU, a self identity.</p>
<p>Then what is Parinibbana?</p>
<p>Well, there is such a thing as <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31154/471">clinging aggregates</a>. According to <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34865/471">this answer</a>, for a living arahant, when ignorance is uprooted, this breaks dependent origination, that ends craving, clinging and suffering. In the chain of dependent origination, clinging aggregates would also cease.</p>
<p>The living arahant according to <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-044" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Iti 44</a>, attained nibbana with fuel remaining (<em>sa-upadisesa</em>), meaning the non-clinging aggregates are still functioning like glowing embers, although the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased.</p>
<p>Parinibbana is when the non-clinging aggregates stop functioning. This is nibbana without fuel remaining (<em>anupadisesa</em>) according to <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-044" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Iti 44</a>.</p>
<p>What is difference between parinibbana and any other death? In the former, the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased. In the latter, the fires of passion, aversion and delusion keeps burning, the (mental idea of a) self is reborn and suffering continues.</p>
<p>A change of perspective is needed i.e. rebirth, birth, death, and parinibbana should not be linked to any permanent consciousness or identity. The first noble truth is that <em>there is</em> suffering. It's not there is my suffering or your suffering but simply there is suffering. This also relates to anatta (not self).</p>
<p>Also, think about the core teaching, <em>sabbe dhamma anatta</em> - all phenomena is not self. There is no permanent consciousness or identity or individuality or self in all phenomena.</p>
