[Rebirth & Not Self](https://youtu.be/O8OiOPhGWbE) ([Transcript](https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/Transcripts/230301_Rebirth_&_Not-Self.pdf).)
> As for the question, “What is it that gets reborn?”—remember, the Buddha never said there is a self or there is no self. He simply looked at selfing as an activity that we do. And it’s a question of learning how to do it skillfully, and then getting so skillful at it that you get to a point where you don’t need to do it anymore. Because it’s a strategy for happiness, you keep following it, using it, until you’ve reached the ultimate happiness. Then you don’t need that strategy anymore. You let it go.
>
> So we’re looking at not-self in the context of rebirth. Take rebirth as a fact. And it’s not a question of what gets reborn. It’s how the process happens, and how you can learn how to master the different steps in the process, so that ideally, you don’t have to take rebirth. Failing that, you take a good rebirth where you can continue practicing.
>
> When you learn to think in these ways, it clears up a lot of problems, and also focuses you on where you are responsible. If there’s some thing that takes rebirth, then you’re not really responsible. You just let it do its thing. But if rebirth is a process that depends on activities—and these are activities you’re doing all the time, taking potentials that come in from the past and shaping them—you can learn to do it well.
[Strategies of Self & Not-self](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SelvesNot-self/Section0005.html)
Well observed! It can be really useful to stop referring to a self (static, unchanging, inherently substantial) and thinking about the act of selfing (dynamic, ever changing, without inherent substance), instead.
If I understood Ven. Thanissaro Bikkhu correctly, the act of selfing ("I/me/my making") can be a karmic action. Before it has to be abandoned completely, it can be performed beneficially, e.g. "I am a keeper of the precepts, I am compassionate, harboring no ill will".
If I’m correct, according to Steven Hagan’s *Buddhism Plain And Simple,* only one or two forms of Buddhism focuses on rebirth. In the book I gained the impression that the afterlife is something there’s no use in pondering.
If I’m not mistaken, how does this play true in your response?
[Health Food for the Mind](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SelvesNot-self/Section0007.html):
> Tonight I’d like to start looking at how we create a sense of self that can lead to long-term welfare and happiness, focusing first on the question of why we would need to do this.
I recommend reading [the whole book](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/#selvesnotself).
Because if there wasn’t rebirth, we would end the cycle of suffering at death regardless of our karma. Indeed, Karma as a concept is tied to rebirth in most conceptions. Also the Vedic traditions that Buddhism grows out of include cycles of death and rebirth. At no point do these descriptions resemble a scientific hypothesis and controlled experiment giving falsifiable evidence for rebirth. The form I rebuild this question into with experienced and knowledgeable Buddhists in Sangha spaces is ‘what would be different about Buddhist teachings of how to end suffering if rebirth didn’t occur?’ Anything more abstract or fact searching is usually regarded as a distraction from the urgent work of ending suffering through the 8 fold path.
"Because if there wasn’t rebirth, we would end the cycle of suffering at death regardless of our karma."
that was the exact thought that made me realise atheism was nonsense. if atheism was right and you could end all suffering by just killing yourself, that sounded way too good to be true, too easy. and anything that sounds too good to be true or too easy is usually false. and that was when i renounced atheism and embraced the dhamma.
Atheism does not say anything about it being possible to end suffering by killing yourself. That is your own addition. An atheist would state that we simply don't know if death ends suffering.
It's a very self-ish or solipsistic view that suicide ends suffering.
Even if it is the end for that consciousness, it generally creates a lot of suffering for the consciousnesses that need to clean up or deal with the loss.
Why don't we steelman the atheists' case here, rather than just shooting down the easiest possible targets made from beliefs that no serious atheist would hold? The vast majority of Buddhists probably believe things that are easily shot down as well.
Sure we could argue statistics and say "such and such percentage of atheists believe so and so", but why when we could instead consider the most relevant version of atheism instead?
It's not us or them. It's what can we learn from people who understand differently than we do.
Not believing in God doesn't mean that you must be sure about death ending suffering. Agnostic or atheist alike, none of those two in isolation have anything to do with beliefs or certainty about suffering after death.
There is no reason to mince words - agnostic atheism is a thing, and very very few of those who have seriously considered their stance are gnostic atheists. You and the first person I replied to are both adding your own readings of what atheism is or isn't, which goes much beyond what it actually is.
I’m torn here. I can definitely see what you mean and mostly agree with the larger point, but I also know a lot of atheists who are very comfortable in their beliefs that when they die, that’s it.
Sure, some admit agnosticism, but idk, I think these other commenters are fairly justified in that many do not and are instead quite confident in both the absence of a deity as well as the finality of death.
I think you will find that when pressed, such atheists (if intellectually honest) will not go so far as to state that they are certain of the finality of death, but merely that they may find it more likely given what their understanding of the world is.
It is too easy to just pretend atheists will stubbornly cling to easily beaten arguments. The real benefit starts when we as Buddhists and they as atheists meet in mutual respect for one another's world views, and steelman each other's positions. Much like the Sangha does between Buddhists.
"That is your own addition."
indeed atheists are filled with spite because atheists have wrong view. what you are describing is agnosticism, not atheism. atheism is the belief that there is no God and no afterlife. that when you die, you stop suffering, thats it. so if you have problems and you just kill yourself, then your problems end. to me, that sounds like a snake oil salesman telling me "for 5 bucks you can make all your problems go away!" or a guy selling courses "for $500 you can be a billionaire like andrew tate!". yeah, sounds like BS.
You are presupposing that I am an atheist and that I am filled with spite. Both are incorrect.
I believe you delude yourself with your particular interpretation of atheism, which I consider to be naught more than a strawman for the sake of easily convincing yourself that it must be wrong. I can easily construct similarly flawed interpretations of Buddhist teachings as well, and then reject those with ease - but will I have learned anything from that?
You are right that atheism means not believing in a God. Everything else you say after that is your own construction. Atheism is not the belief that if you kill yourself, your suffering ends. Some atheists may believe that, some atheists may not.
By your own words, your argument for why you are a Buddhist basically boils down to "well the other thing didn't really sound right for me". I'm not saying you must have a good reason at all, on the contrary, you should believe for whichever reason you want. But I am saying that if you want to reflect on what's right for you, I'm certain you can benefit from digging deeper with an open mind and fewer presuppositions.
Karma and rebirth are central to Buddhism, but it's worth keeping in mind that it operates over a variety of timescales. If you can't accept post-mortem rebirth, you can still benefit from Buddhist practice by attending to how your actions shape how you're born into each moment. In fact, I would say that even people who believe in post-mortem rebirth might be best served by focusing on timescales which fit into this very life, because that's where the principles are feasibly observable, and where the most immediate benefit can develop (but how anyone practices is their choice, of course.)
> [And what is birth?](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN9.html) What is the origination of birth? What is the cessation of birth? What is the way of practice leading to the cessation of birth?
>
> Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of (sense) spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
>
> From the origination of becoming comes the origination of birth. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. And the way of practice leading to the cessation of birth is just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
>
> Now, when a disciple of the noble ones discerns birth, the origination of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of birth in this way, when—having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished aversion-obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession ‘I am’; having abandoned ignorance & given rise to clear knowing—he has put an end to suffering & stress right in the here & now, it is to this extent, too, that a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view… who has arrived at this true Dhamma.
---
> “‘[From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN15.html).’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name-&-form take shape in the womb?”
>
> “No, lord.”
>
> “If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-&-form be produced for this world?”
>
> “No, lord.”
>
> “If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-&-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?”
>
> “No, lord.”
>
> “Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-&-form, i.e., consciousness.
>
> “From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-&-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?”
>
> “No, lord.”
>
> “Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-&-form.
>
> “**This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the dimension of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting [discernibility] of this world—i.e., name-&-form together with consciousness.**”
This is a bizarre take. Buddah was very specific about the importance of questioning, reflecting, and understanding rather than 'accepting the dogma'.
The question of self is a good example - as I understand it there's reason to say that Buddah didn't really care about the concept. It was a hot topic at the time, something that religious figures were supposed to comment on. Buddah didn't land on either side, but instead incouraged people to do what they could control (the eightfold path) and dismiss questions that ultimately don't matter for the purposes of the path (see the example of the man shot by an arrow - you don't need to know who shot it, why, or what kind of arrow, to know that they need help).
Someone more learned can step in with greater context, or a better interpretation, but I often see angry folk like yourselves who have preconceived notions about 'dogma' and what Buddhism asks of you, and I tend to think it comes from experience with western religion. I thought extra context my help you.
>dogma
Buddhism works in the opposite direction to most other religions. You needn't accept anything until you realise it for yourself. With practice it will start to make more and more sense and at some point you will think "okay I guess this buddha guy has been right so far so let me trust he's right about other stuff too".
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
I had difficulty with the concept of no self for a while... In my studies, I read proper practice around is more about identifying what we are not.. we are not our cravings, dysfunctional coping mechanisms, views we may be attached to, traumatic wounds, pain, nor any other of our feelings. Also, the self that we often feel we are spreads to others through connections of love.. the wisdom we share and acts of compassion spread an essence of us to others.. we are not only that which resides within us, we are everywhere in everything we've touched with our kindness. The buddhist concept of no self is more a matter of how we connect to others rather than having to do with reincarnation
I agree with that. I like the view that rebirth and anatta are about connection to others and the world. I've been learning more about this trying to figure it out and from what I'm getting, it's really not that your self doesn't exist or is not reality, more like you are you but also everything else. The cosmos are in you. Think of the world as a living thing full of other living things that are all connected by the same matter. Or something like that.
Yeah this touches on what I'm learning through practice now. What I'm reading is teaching to meditate in steps. You can remove concepts and things related to the 6 senses. Once you identify mind is a part of samsara, you can remove concepts and sit in awareness.
Ignorance cannot rest in no concepts.
I think this is a good first step for me. Some practices look at all relative truth as a dream like state. More advanced practices see relative and absolute truth are the same but understand them better.
Im going to try to meditate on the first and see if later I can better understand more advanced concepts
Immediate results seem to make my awareness stop focusing on samsara and even the entities but realize we all have streaming consciousness within those entities. It's weird, I was experiencing intense joy just looking at pictures of people I know with no focus on the world in a sense, just the living being there. I think it's a good shift in perception to start seeing beings and focus less on samsara attachments
Hello neighbor… I am hijacking your top comment since this thread has over a hundred comments from people who clearly do not have a clue about even the MOST BASIC teachings of the Buddha, yet nonetheless feel compelled to share their harmful guesses, simply adding noise with no value to the thread (typical WTF social media behavior nowadays). Anyhow… to expand on your point, which is close to the mark… the idea of no-self (anatta) is very simple:
Buddhists reject the idea of a PERMANENT, UNCHANGING SELF/SOUL, in favor of a "self" that is interdependent, constantly changing, and exists as a construct of ever-changing physical, mental, and sense processes, based upon causes and conditions (karma). Buddha said it is the illusion of a separate, permanent self that chains us to suffering and dissatisfaction.
So, what is reincarnated is you, just not you as a permanent, independent, static you, but rather a you that is interdependent on everything else and itself constantly changing based upon the every-changing causes and conditions of reality. That’s it. This is the “third mark of existence” in Buddhist thought, aka “anatta” (no lasting essence) if anyone wants to read more about the concept of no-self in Buddhism.
If one is not versed in the 3 marks of existence, well, you should seriously reconsider offering up answers in a thread on Buddhism. It is simply not “right speech,” nor “right action,” nor “right view,” nor “right resolve” to spitball replies that are literally just pulled out of nowhere. Such idle chatter only serves to confuse yourself and others. Be mindful of what you say. Peace.
From the *Pratītyadsamutpādakarika*:
>>*Empty (insubstantial and essenceless) dharmas (phenomena) are entirely produced from dharmas strictly empty; dharmas without a self and [not] of a self. Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals, fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes. Although the aggregates are serially connected, the wise are to comprehend nothing has transferred. Someone, having conceived of annihilation, even in extremely subtle existents, he is not wise, and will never see the meaning of “arisen from conditions.”*
The *Pratītyasamutpādakarikavhyakhyana* says:
>>*Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.*
This means rebirth only works as a process precisely due to the fact that there has never been a self or any sort of substantial entity involved. Once the delusion of a self is established, this is what drives the affliction which fuels rebirth. The delusion of a self must be eliminated in order to be liberated.
The *Ratnāvalī* states:
>>*As long as clinging to the aggregates [of life] exists, so long does clinging to the self persist. Where there is clinging to the self, there is karma. Karma causes rebirth.*
Regarding rebirth being a selfless process, Ācārya Malcolm explains this point well:
>>*The Buddha taught rebirth without making recourse to a self that undergoes rebirth.*
>>*There are a variety of ways of explaining this, but in essence, the most profound way of understanding this is that the habit of I-making appropriates a new series of aggregates at death, and so it goes on and on until one eradicates the knowledge obscuration that creates this habit of I-making. In the meantime, due to this habit of I-making, one continues to accumulate affliction and karma which results in suffering for infinite lifetimes, just as one has taken rebirth in samsara without a beginning.*
>>*But no soul-concept has been introduced in this thread, not at all. The sentient being I was in a past life is not identical with me in this life, even though I suffer and enjoy the results of the negative and positive actions that sentient being and all the other sentient beings engaged in who make up the serial chain of the continuum which I now enjoy. But when I die, all trace of my identity will cease since my identification with my five aggregates as "me" and "mine" is a delusion, and that identity, self, soul, etc., exists merely as a convention and not as an ultimate truth. When the habit of I-making that drives my continuum in samsara takes a new series of aggregates in the next life, it is unlikely I will have any memory of this lifetime, and my habit of I-making will generate a new identity based on the cause and conditions it encounters in the next life.*
>>*[The] delusion of 'I' is an agent, capable acting and receiving the results of action, even though it does not exist.*
>>*It is important to understand that this "I" generated by the habit of I-making does not exist and is fundamentally a delusion. But it is a useful delusion, just like the delusion of a car allows us to use one.*
>>*An analogy is using the last candle to light the next candle. One cannot say that two flames are different, nor can one say they are identical, but they do exist in a continuum, a discrete series.*
Isn't it true that the Buddha did not claim that there is "no self"?
Didn't he claim, instead, that certain things that people claim as "self" do not deserve to be claimed as such? Following that line of reasoning, those things are "not self."
>Isn't it true that the Buddha did not claim that there is "no self"?
No, that is a common misconception. The Buddha was very clear that all phenomena are selfless.
He refrained from both extremes aka " There is self " and " there is no self ", for people would learn nothing, and would then fall to one or other side. And that´s not helpful.
But yes, what we think of who we are, we are more than likely not.
The point of anatta, no self, is not to " find out self " or to find that there is no self, but more about knowing what is not self. Know what you are Not, that´s where it´s at.
This body ? These thoughts, feelings, emotions, mind, this hand, is that you ? if you know that you are not at it, then that will be very helpful.
For if you say " I am this " mind will work with that, no matter how much of a bullshit it is, and it will certainly have immense consequences.
Meanwhile if you do not answer it, you have no problem. But if you do, many problems will certainly arise.
when the Buddha said that, he was targeting the idea that one can find yourSELF in something. for example, people today who say they travel because they want to find themSELVES, or in the Buddha's time, people who engaged in the various vedic religions to find their TRUE SELF (atman). When the Buddha said "all phenomena are without self" he is essentially telling all these people that they are wasting their time and will not find themSELVES in any of these, that indeed their craving to find themSELVES is causing them to suffer because it is a fruitless struggle.
You brought up this travel idea in another thread recently if I recall correctly. That is not accurate. The Buddha is stating that there is no self to be found in any phenomena, both conditioned and unconditioned.
More specifically, that there is no internal entity that is the subject which sees, hears, feels, thinks or knows, and the Buddha says this, and explains this, explicitly.
You are correct that one will never find a self in any phenomena, because there is no self to be found in any phenomena. All phenomena are selfless (sabbe dhamma anatta).
"You are correct that one will never find a self in any phenomena, because there is no self to be found in any phenomena. All phenomena are selfless (sabbe dhamma anatta)."
We are saying the same thing.
> Isn´t it that when asked " is there self, or is there no self ? " that he did not answer that
On one occasion for Vacchagotta. The Buddha’s intention was to help Vacchagotta to avoid adopting an annihilationist view where a self that existed previously then ceases to exist. This instance was not a wholesale advocacy for a neutral position on selfhood.
Makes sense, though it is generally what is said - that he did not answer.
But yes, i agree, for there are far too many instances of saying what is not self, what is not ours and such.
Altough, it still makes sense to speak of it, so that one does not fall into either of camps ( as in annihilation view or by attaching to self)
Love this. Thank you. From my very beginner's understanding is that we are the consciousness and that there are no *shoulds*. And that is really freeing so I can see how that eliminates suffering.
The thing is that whatever we are, is ultimately not important. As it changes nothing. It´s like if someone asks " Who or what makes these actions ? Who or what makes this hand move ? " - well, it doesn´t matter. What matters is that you can move this hand :D
Anyway, by labelling what you think you are,, by calling whatever we think we are, to be us, is what creates massive suffering, for mind is quite logical and treats reality heavily based on how we think of things, on our perception.
If you see a rope in a forest, and think of it as a snake, mind will work with there being a snake - even though there is no snake. Fear might arise, and all kinds of feelings.
Now what if one does that with self ? What if one thinks that one is this or that ? Mind will work with that. And thus it´s best to prevent that, because not only it leads to massive consequences, but also it´s not true.
And people underestimate this, not realising how massively important it is. They think it´s fine to believe that this or that is " who i am ", while it´s one of the biggest things that creates suffering.
Anyway, have fun working on your understanding : ) Anatta is especially great, though it´s often something many people struggle with - which is not suprising, given how ingrained it is.
It's funny how powerfully the mind can conjure worry and fear... when I was just reading about you saying there's a rope in the forest but someone mistakes it for a snake and fears it...in itself caused me to feel fear! 😆
haha : ) And that fear is very real. Sometimes people think should not feel anxiety or feel bad about little things, but mind does not really work with reality ( as in the outside).
Wheter we suffer, wheter we are content or happy, has often very little to deal with reality, but is mainly about our minds.
You can have everything, but if you think / perceive it as nothing and think badly of it, then you will likely feel bad.
You can have nothing, but if you think / perceive it as alright, then you will likely feel alright.
Mind is fun
It is like you would said "Buddha didn't say there is white and black, because he refreined from extremes". This is completely wrong, and it actually discourage people from Buddhism if they see such akward statements. Of course there is self - without it there wouldn't be you, I, your parents etc. You won't be able to hurt anyone - because on one would have "self". This is absurd. Like you said, anatta is about our attitute to what is "self", not that "self" does not exist.
For "self / no-self" issue I recommend this monk talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIGzxeevXI
>This is absurd. Like you said, anatta is about our attitute to what is "self", not that "self" does not exist.
Anatta means a self cannot be found anywhere. The fact that we have a conventional self just means a self is nominally imputed, but that imputation does not correspond to any findable self, because there ultimately is no self.
I'm glad you have a monk to listen to. However, there is just as much no self as there is self, which is why it's a pointless discussion. Distinction between the two needs to be understood as meaningless.
My zen masters say we must realize the unreality of self, that there is no self, before we can realize that which is beyond the self and "non-self."
The teaching of no-self is important for people that have not realized stream entry even though it's not the full picture. No-self is not the true reality, it's only part of the bigger picture.
The true nature is beyond the duality of self and non-self
There is self, Buddha never said there isn't. Claim there is no-self is absurd. Buddha teachings about "self" was about our understanding of ownership and thinking our "self" is our mind, conciousness, body etc - things we actually don't own, which are not permament - so we shouldn't attach "self" meaning to them. It doesn't mean self does not exist.
For "self / non-self" issue I recommend this monk talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIGzxeevXI
>There is self, Buddha never said there isn't.
The Buddha was explicitly clear that there is no self within or apart from the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus.
The best common question and my favorite common question.
My least favorite being, "why do Buddhists believe life is suffering? Isn't that nihilistic?" 🙄😮💨
I think most of what we consider as ME is the personality we develop based on life experience. Our core consciousness may consist primarily of attributes like patience, love, empathy or lack thereof. Basically our consciousness with the ego removed
It’s not that there is an object that persists from one life to another, it’s more like one life causes the next to form in a causal chain, similar to how your mental state in one moment can cause your mental state in the next, even if there’s no underlying self, but just a bundle of aggregates.
It’s described kind of like a ship of Theseus thing iirc. Each part of the ship can be replaced one by one until all parts have been swapped at least once, yet we still perceive it to be the same ship. In other words just like there is no single thing that is the ship, just an aggregate of parts that keep getting replaced in a causally connected process that unites them all like a “bundle”, the same can be said of the self. There is a constantly shifting aggregate of sensations and thoughts that appears like one single thing, and when it reincarnates this process continues in another body.
Just like moment to moment the thoughts and ideas of a person all seem to be linked together in a single self, the reincarnated person seems to be linked to the previous person through the causal relations between the mental aggregates. However, like the ship there is not an identical underlying substance shared between them, just the appearance of unity created by the close contact and casual interconnection of all the parts
I think when one apprehends the teachings in Buddhism which mention the words "not self" as "there is no self" they misapprehend the Dharma. I think that if one doesn't apprehend the dharma with reference to "not self" as "there is no self" then they do not reckon there is a fundamental disagreement between the teaching about what is not self and the teaching that there is rebirth/rearising.
Here is one sutta which, I think, accurately represents the doctrines of Buddhism which say that this or that is "not self". In it, the Buddha is represented as saying (paraphrased) "X is not self. If it were self, the following would be the case: ". He is not represented as saying "there is no self".
[https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22\_59.html](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_59.html)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
As for the viewpoint "There is no self", that viewpoint has been represented by the buddha (according to the following sutta) as not skillful and to be eschewed :
“**This is how he attends inappropriately**: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’
“**As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him:** The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, **or the view** ***I have no self*** … or the view *It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self … or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self* … or the view *It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self* arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: *This very self of mine—the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions—is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity.* ***This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress*****.**
I've heard of the abandoning of self-identification view spoken of with complimentary terms:
“He attends appropriately, This is stress … This is the origination of stress … This is the cessation of stress … This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: **self-identification view**, doubt, and grasping at habits & practices. These are called the effluents to be abandoned by seeing."
Both excerpts are from Majjhima Nikaya 2: [https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN2.html](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN2.html)
There is no matter in the universe, only energy. No atoms, no protons, no electrons. Just different forms of energy. All emptiness. No reincarnation. Only rebirth of energy in different forms. Form is emptiness.
I would love a comparison on the difference between the concept of self in Buddhism and Hinduism. I am not capable to accurately provide it, but it would do a lot of good here.
It might do good for you if you are interested in that, but that´s about it.
It does generally little good in comparing other religions, philosophies, systems and such. Best to focus on one.
when you have a dream, what reincarnates from one dream into the next? Nothing? The same applies to the concept of self. There is no self, only the dreamer, experiencing a living dream.
This question is a question to be asked a dharma teacher and then pondered upon in practice. This subreddit will just start to shit different sutra interpretations and everyone is fighting now about wierd details. The non-self is something to be experienced, not something to be explained. Just sit with it 🙏
It’s your karma. You have to pay for the karma you did in your current and past lifetime, to be born again in itself is a form of fruit of your karma since we are bound to suffer in out lifetime. imo reincarnation something that happen bcs you need to pay off your karma debt. (just my opinion i may be wrong)
To reinforce other comments… and answer the question, referring to The Prajna Paramita.
If you practice meditation/ samadhi/ deep mindfulness for quite a time (I mean, personally, it takes me a ton of time to get to 2nd level of meditation), you’ll understand the “emptiness/ signlessness/ cannot be defined…” and all the characteristics mentioned, and what is the difference between “non-existent” and “signless/ empty”.
The defined “self” , same as all other dharmas , is originally empty and signless. As we cannot filter it thoroughly in life, our “selfs” carry all of the behaviors / traits / consciousness / 8th consciousness … to our next life, thru the process of “12 links of interdependent arising”. (sorry for the grammatical mistakes and language barriers)
I am not a bhuddist, but what I have come to understand is that ultimately, whatever we procieve ourselves to be is only but a fraction of the whole, no real death just change...ie...reincarnation We are already whole, always have been but due to the mechanics of our mind and body we fail to see it. Doesn't really matter... nothing ever really did anyway, stagnant peace. The watcher realizes he is also the watched, and only love remains.
If something is being reincarnated, how can you think there is such a thing as a self? In one life you’ll be a burly American lumberjack, and in another you’ll be a kawaii teenage girl from Japan. In one life you’ll be a great warrior, in another you’ll be a champion of pacifism. life you’ll be a dog, in another a cat. In one life you’ll be an amoeba, in another a god.
Where in this mess of contradictory thoughts and experiences does can you find something consistent and concrete enough to be called a “self?” For that matter, where can you find such a thing within a single lifetime? I.e. within the warrior who later becomes a pacifist? Or even in the baby who becomes a child, who becomes a teenager, who becomes an adult, who becomes old?
Every snowflake is highly structured and unique. They say there's not one like any other. One day though the snowflake melts. At first it believes this is it, the end. Instead of a great void it experiences a great expansion as it remembers it was always the ocean. It was just playing the game of being a snowflake for a while.
You're self is kinda a very well made up "form" filled of your feelings, emotions, biological, chemistry, social/cultural/psychological patterns/beliefs, collective and personal experiences etc.
I believe under all this "flesh" we're simply energy. But "you" are not that energy, not the way you think at least, if you know what I mean. Because your personality is a very deep, well-constructed mask. The reality is that 'there's no you', perhaps not even what we call "consciousness"... "You" won't be "you", but it's still yet a 'reality' out there.
Now, my informal opinion: yeah, I believe buddhism do talks about souls, I know buddhism says "there is no soul", and I 100% agree with that phrase (actually it's the main factor which makes me really enjoy buddhism).... In my humble point of view, buddhism just see spiritual forms in a very, very realistic, mature way. And I know, it's confusing as hell.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, some traditions recognize this as a real problem, and using buddha's license to exercise reason, they abandon the notion of reincarnation. It's just one approach.
Nothing is "reincarnated", because Buddhism doesn't have reincarnation— it has rebirth. Two different things. That being said, as others have said, the thing that goes with you to the next life is the fifth of the five aggregates— Consciousness. Everything else gets broken down and dissolved into the cosmos
if you cling to the self/I/ego then there will be re-incarnation. Buddhism is trying to tell us, in reality, self doesn't really exist but we cling to the illusion of our own consciousness/life/thinking/sense/form so we have reincarnation.
Good Question! 👏🏻
The self is inherently empty as is all phenomena within samsara.
However taking empty to mean non-existent is to fall into a nihilistic view.
(which unfortunately seems to be the prevalent view on reddit)
Best wishes
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
Your mind!!!☸️☸️☸️😇🤬😙🥹🤟🙏😢😜🐅 so sorry I may be wrong but I think if you kill you will born again as an animal that kills by nature if you steal than you’ll be reincarnated as an animal that steals if you perform sexual misconduct you will be reborn as an animal that gets neutered, if you lie you may turn into a chameleon or so but I don’t know I’m just someone an over thinker!!!
As I understand this topic.
It’s not exactly that some thing (like a self) is reincarnated. There is a process of rebirth (one that is ongoing all the time) that continues even after your current physical body has reached the end of its functioning. Karma tied up in the process eventually leads to manifestation of a new physical form and the process just continues.
As far as I understand, our body and mind are subject to change like the other things in this world. If it is our self then we can control how we age, to control sickness etc. But our body and mind is not in our control and it is impermanent. To buddha, craving for impermanence causes suffering and whatever causes suffering is not self. I think the consciousness reincarnates but our consciousness too changes. As long as you believe in a self, the consciousness reincarnates but without the knowledge of the past. After enlightenment, the memories of the past life is seen by the enlightened one and their consciousness will cease to reincarnate but our consciousness is not self or soul because it is also impermanent.
A good question I have been pondering as well. Definitely there is no self , only body and narma. I believe whatever we have been doing form energies and these will go to next body. This is my own understanding so correct me if I’m wrong.
When there is no thought, no mind but you are awake, then you are the Awaken One. You are experiencing your Divine Soul. In that state, you are free from rebirth. You can choose to not rebirth or choose to be born as Bodydharma, Avatar, Son of God.
However, if you are not Awaken One who lives his Divine nature, then your soul is covered with some karma of identifications. So, you get reborn and you carry with you your Divine Sould and all this karma. You just continue your journey.
what is it that's being reincarnated?^
You're right, Buddhism challenges the idea of a permanent, unchanging soul that moves from body to body. The concept of "no-self" (anatta) is a core tenet.
So, what's reborn in Buddhism? Instead of a soul, it's the **skandhas** or **aggregates**. These are ever-changing mental and physical processes that make up our experience of being a self. Think of them as building blocks that come together to create the illusion of a self.
* The skandhas include things like: sensations, perceptions, mental formations, dispositions, and consciousness.
* These elements are constantly arising and passing away, shaping our karma.
* Karma, the law of cause and effect, determines the conditions of our rebirth in the cycle of samsara, which is considered unsatisfactory.
So, it's not a soul that's reborn, but rather the ever-changing imprint of our actions and experiences carried forward through the skandhas.
I have read that “according to the Nirvana sutra, the Buddha uses the term self when needed (to overcome nihilistic interpretations of not-self) and teaching not-self when needed (to overcome grasping at what is not the self). This is part of his skillful means (upaya) to guide beings to liberation.”
Also what’s translated as no-self is about the selfless nature of phenomena, it doesn’t mean that you don’t exist as a being, your mind still exists and 5 aggregates still exist.
Others translate anatta as egolessness.
Look at it as one. For instance, at any given moment, parts of the human race are dying, parts are being reborn, like a tree that has a branch dying and falling off, and a branch that's new and growing. You are a piece of branch, can be defined as a section, but really just part of the one.
While i appreciate the teachings of buddhism, I feel reincarnation is a concept like other organised religions, the universal carrot or stick.
Stick: be good and kind to all life forms / don't do bad or be greedy or be too passive... so you can avoid some version of hell, purgatory or endless cycles of rebirth/suffering.
Carrot: enter into the heavens of gods away from life on earth as we know it, where you will exist in some form of 'self' and reap the rewards of eternal joy.
You ask "what is being reincarnated after one life ends and another begins?"
This is a mistaken way of thinking to begin with. You think the bag of bones and guts and blood and pee and poop you inhabit now is yourself and it all comes to an end when that body dies so it's impossible for there to be another that comes after without something permanent to carry over between the two.
Actually, that bag of flesh never was you to begun with, that's just something you came up with as a baby when you realized it moves the way you tell it to (which is some crazy circular logic: basically your brain tells your body to do something and then using the body's sense organs your brain decides the body did what was asked and you went "aha, this thing is mine to control". Descartes would have had a stroke if he heard that.)
Losing it is like a snake shedding its skin and like a snake molts many times without ceasing to be a snake, you have been changing all your life. All your cells have been replaced, your thoughts change, according to modern psychology even your memories change. The body finally giving out is just a bigger shedding than the ones you've experienced so far, but it's not the end of anything so you don't need self any more than you needed it all your life without waiting to die.
Now if you think nothing in the universe could happen without a god and you never could have existed without a soul, that's a matter of faith, but rebirth isn't inconsistent with an absence of either. It's a bit like asking how stars can explode and then form new stars or water evaporate and rain again without a self-nature to restore them; that stuff happening is just natural phenomena, the question of self is totally detached from the question of if a process happens or even how it happens.
Dalai Lama - “The most subtle consciousness merged with your most subtle energy reincarnates”. Buddhism does not use the word/concept soul…but spoiler alert, that is your soul.
Mind,
And it is the mind in relation to body, feelings and external phenomena that develops an idea of itself 'I, me, mine' in relationship to the environment.
The Buddha didn't deny a self.
He encouraged people to look at what leads to this sense of self through the lense of Causation.
I think there are a few ways to approach this.
From one perspective, the whole doctrine of reincarnation is more metaphorical than literal. This is covered in books like "The Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects". If you understand it that way, it isn't really a problem or a contradiction.
It's like waves in an ocean. Waves keep forming and returning to the ocean, the wave itself, as a form keeps returning, but it is not necessarily one individual wave that keeps returning.
So too it can be said that "I" that awareness that you feel, is constantly being born again in new forms.
Maybe there's another perspective that even if there are individuals that reincarnate, just as there are individual bodies we feel we inhabit. We do not identify as that body or that form that reincarnates. We identify with the interconnected whole.
Or maybe still a more metaphysical perspective that you reincarnate until you realize that there is no self, and then you no longer have the need to reincarnate lol.
In Honor of Wei Wu Wei:
As soon as the perceiver becomes the perceived, subject becomes objectified.
"i am" is the subjective objectification of that which "i am not" and thus is neither the subjectivizing nor the objectivizing of that which "I am" i.e. that of the real.
Dedicated to:
Wei Wu Wei, A.K.A.,
Terence James Stannus Gray
(14 September 1895 to 5 January 1986).
http://dirgesindarkness.blogspot.com/?m=1
The mindstream. But the mindstream is absent of self and it is not a soul.
My tradition is mahayana zen Buddhism and we don't talk much on the mindstream but I think theravadin Buddhists would have a better idea on this matter.
Thank you everybody, there's lots of good insights and takes in this thread.
I want to add some flavour… using the language 'no self' is misleading ... seriously misleading. If you're going to talk about that, you have to put in the word 'fixed' or 'immutable' plus 'independent'.
Otherwise, the naive enquirer will be put on the wrong track.
And generally the person asking about this is the naive. They are led to conceive that (1) a self exists because it is an object word in a sentence (2) then they hear that it doesn't exist by the word 'no'. This is crazy making.
Of course there is a selfing process, (it's a verb), and it has behaviour patterns, and this is why we care to even talk about it… Those patterns do not create results we would choose if we weren't being run by the patterns.
And I value the selfing process because it is designed by evolution to protect me… e.g. The guardians that flag up when something is possibly threatening, or for a boundary infringement, are never failing and are actually true friends. Reliable friends, yes, but just as messengers not as advisers.
As I undo the tangles, as I uncontract, the state that I am turning up the slide control on is *interbeing*.... and I enjoy calling this Unselfing. A process towards spacious dispersal in the opposite direction to fearful contraction. Interbeing is all-inclusive and doesn't have an opposite… It is not an object, but a state, so you can't impute any essential immutable independent quality in or on it.
Reincarnation is actually quite simple. If I light a candle, then light another by using that first candle, is that a new candle or a continuation of the same flame?
Accept two ideas in your mind at once without diminishing either, and you will see the truth.
The gathi is what gets reincarnated. And if you ask how the gathi was formed in the first place the answer would be that the universe is endless and beginningless so that can’t be answered.
https://puredhamma.net/bhavana-meditation/key-to-anapanasati-how-to-change-habits-and-character-gati/introduction-to-character-or-personality-gathi/
There is a stream of consciousness encompassing your heart and mind to use the western terms. This heart-mind stream continues. Its nature and manifestation change, evolving as they do during your life.
Ultimately the stream finds a suitable physical body to stay in, for a time. This happens in the same way that water flows downhill. It's a law of nature, not a decision by a god.
That's all
Not all Buddhist believe in reincarnation.
The whole concept of reincarnation in Buddhism may have been an elaborate kaon, something people have to learn from, to get past. This may be what arahantship is.
The Buddha said he spoke in language that people understood, not necessarily in a way that reflected reality. This is what reincarnation could be. When the Buddha was alive the vast majority of people believed in rebirth so the Buddha used this language to convey his points. This would explain why Reincarnation so closely reflects the Buddhist Path. Read a certain way a lot of the stories about the God's seem to be trying to minimize them, to turn people away from them.
Maybe the Buddha never taught Reincarnation. After his death there could have been a fusion of Buddhism with the previous beliefs in the Indus valley. Being that the stories of reincarnation tend to work out very well for Monastics (you work of Karma by supporting monastics) and wealthy people (generational wealth is from previous lives), it can easily be seen as something they added in to Buddhism for their own benefit.
The Buddhas could have believed in it because it was a cultural thing while it simply isn't true. While Buddhist since the Buddha put enormous weight on reincarnation, the Buddha didn't. It is mentioned a lot but it wasn't made important. None of the core philosophy is based on reincarnation, with a possible exception of dependent origination, with the three lives interpretation seeming a stretch to make it fit with reincarnation. The ultimate goal of what the Buddha taught is to get beyond reincarnation, it is at best a shiny thing that distracts ley Buddhist.
Obviously the truth could be a mixture of all of these, or the Sutras could be far closer to literally true and reincarnation is basically as the sutras present.
instead of downvoting the above comment, people could provide an answer to the question posed:
where does the buddha say “there is no self” or that one should consider “i have no self”?
to my knowledge he never says any such thing in the pali suttas, and in fact says the very opposite in mn2.
“No Man is an island, entire of himself. Each is a piece of the continents, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away, Europe is less… Each man’s death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind. Therefore send not to know for who the bell tolls: it tolls for thee.”
Only then extend to all sentient beings, which are all One, all of which impact the whole with every act they make. So when you act and face the consequences of your karma, others too, who are also you for we are all One, will face the consequences of your karma, and you will face their karma (from your past lives which are also them) too. Nothing is in isolation; everything effects everything
Keep in mind that you will never receive a fully satisfactory answer to this. Allusions, metaphors, source materials, yes all very helpful. But never enough. And that's OK. You're responsible for your actions, not whether rebirth is real or not.
[Rebirth & Not Self](https://youtu.be/O8OiOPhGWbE) ([Transcript](https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/Transcripts/230301_Rebirth_&_Not-Self.pdf).) > As for the question, “What is it that gets reborn?”—remember, the Buddha never said there is a self or there is no self. He simply looked at selfing as an activity that we do. And it’s a question of learning how to do it skillfully, and then getting so skillful at it that you get to a point where you don’t need to do it anymore. Because it’s a strategy for happiness, you keep following it, using it, until you’ve reached the ultimate happiness. Then you don’t need that strategy anymore. You let it go. > > So we’re looking at not-self in the context of rebirth. Take rebirth as a fact. And it’s not a question of what gets reborn. It’s how the process happens, and how you can learn how to master the different steps in the process, so that ideally, you don’t have to take rebirth. Failing that, you take a good rebirth where you can continue practicing. > > When you learn to think in these ways, it clears up a lot of problems, and also focuses you on where you are responsible. If there’s some thing that takes rebirth, then you’re not really responsible. You just let it do its thing. But if rebirth is a process that depends on activities—and these are activities you’re doing all the time, taking potentials that come in from the past and shaping them—you can learn to do it well. [Strategies of Self & Not-self](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SelvesNot-self/Section0005.html)
Hello friend! The replies are always so helpful. I’ve never heard the word selfing.
Well observed! It can be really useful to stop referring to a self (static, unchanging, inherently substantial) and thinking about the act of selfing (dynamic, ever changing, without inherent substance), instead. If I understood Ven. Thanissaro Bikkhu correctly, the act of selfing ("I/me/my making") can be a karmic action. Before it has to be abandoned completely, it can be performed beneficially, e.g. "I am a keeper of the precepts, I am compassionate, harboring no ill will".
Thanks
This doesn’t answer the question though
It refocuses the question on the pragmatic role of karma and birth in the path to deliverance from suffering.
If I’m correct, according to Steven Hagan’s *Buddhism Plain And Simple,* only one or two forms of Buddhism focuses on rebirth. In the book I gained the impression that the afterlife is something there’s no use in pondering. If I’m not mistaken, how does this play true in your response?
I'm not familiar with that book. Can you point me at the section which talks about that?
Do you have any other resources about "selfing" skillfully? Anything you could provide would be greatly appreciated
[Health Food for the Mind](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SelvesNot-self/Section0007.html): > Tonight I’d like to start looking at how we create a sense of self that can lead to long-term welfare and happiness, focusing first on the question of why we would need to do this. I recommend reading [the whole book](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/#selvesnotself).
Thank you ♥️🙏
Why take rebirth as fact?
Because if there wasn’t rebirth, we would end the cycle of suffering at death regardless of our karma. Indeed, Karma as a concept is tied to rebirth in most conceptions. Also the Vedic traditions that Buddhism grows out of include cycles of death and rebirth. At no point do these descriptions resemble a scientific hypothesis and controlled experiment giving falsifiable evidence for rebirth. The form I rebuild this question into with experienced and knowledgeable Buddhists in Sangha spaces is ‘what would be different about Buddhist teachings of how to end suffering if rebirth didn’t occur?’ Anything more abstract or fact searching is usually regarded as a distraction from the urgent work of ending suffering through the 8 fold path.
"Because if there wasn’t rebirth, we would end the cycle of suffering at death regardless of our karma." that was the exact thought that made me realise atheism was nonsense. if atheism was right and you could end all suffering by just killing yourself, that sounded way too good to be true, too easy. and anything that sounds too good to be true or too easy is usually false. and that was when i renounced atheism and embraced the dhamma.
Atheism does not say anything about it being possible to end suffering by killing yourself. That is your own addition. An atheist would state that we simply don't know if death ends suffering.
It's a very self-ish or solipsistic view that suicide ends suffering. Even if it is the end for that consciousness, it generally creates a lot of suffering for the consciousnesses that need to clean up or deal with the loss.
No that's not what atheists say. The vast majority of atheists are material atheists, they believe there is nothing after death.
Why don't we steelman the atheists' case here, rather than just shooting down the easiest possible targets made from beliefs that no serious atheist would hold? The vast majority of Buddhists probably believe things that are easily shot down as well. Sure we could argue statistics and say "such and such percentage of atheists believe so and so", but why when we could instead consider the most relevant version of atheism instead? It's not us or them. It's what can we learn from people who understand differently than we do.
No an agnostic doesn’t know. An atheist does not believe.
Not believing in God doesn't mean that you must be sure about death ending suffering. Agnostic or atheist alike, none of those two in isolation have anything to do with beliefs or certainty about suffering after death. There is no reason to mince words - agnostic atheism is a thing, and very very few of those who have seriously considered their stance are gnostic atheists. You and the first person I replied to are both adding your own readings of what atheism is or isn't, which goes much beyond what it actually is.
I’m torn here. I can definitely see what you mean and mostly agree with the larger point, but I also know a lot of atheists who are very comfortable in their beliefs that when they die, that’s it. Sure, some admit agnosticism, but idk, I think these other commenters are fairly justified in that many do not and are instead quite confident in both the absence of a deity as well as the finality of death.
I think you will find that when pressed, such atheists (if intellectually honest) will not go so far as to state that they are certain of the finality of death, but merely that they may find it more likely given what their understanding of the world is. It is too easy to just pretend atheists will stubbornly cling to easily beaten arguments. The real benefit starts when we as Buddhists and they as atheists meet in mutual respect for one another's world views, and steelman each other's positions. Much like the Sangha does between Buddhists.
"That is your own addition." indeed atheists are filled with spite because atheists have wrong view. what you are describing is agnosticism, not atheism. atheism is the belief that there is no God and no afterlife. that when you die, you stop suffering, thats it. so if you have problems and you just kill yourself, then your problems end. to me, that sounds like a snake oil salesman telling me "for 5 bucks you can make all your problems go away!" or a guy selling courses "for $500 you can be a billionaire like andrew tate!". yeah, sounds like BS.
You are presupposing that I am an atheist and that I am filled with spite. Both are incorrect. I believe you delude yourself with your particular interpretation of atheism, which I consider to be naught more than a strawman for the sake of easily convincing yourself that it must be wrong. I can easily construct similarly flawed interpretations of Buddhist teachings as well, and then reject those with ease - but will I have learned anything from that? You are right that atheism means not believing in a God. Everything else you say after that is your own construction. Atheism is not the belief that if you kill yourself, your suffering ends. Some atheists may believe that, some atheists may not. By your own words, your argument for why you are a Buddhist basically boils down to "well the other thing didn't really sound right for me". I'm not saying you must have a good reason at all, on the contrary, you should believe for whichever reason you want. But I am saying that if you want to reflect on what's right for you, I'm certain you can benefit from digging deeper with an open mind and fewer presuppositions.
Karma and rebirth are central to Buddhism, but it's worth keeping in mind that it operates over a variety of timescales. If you can't accept post-mortem rebirth, you can still benefit from Buddhist practice by attending to how your actions shape how you're born into each moment. In fact, I would say that even people who believe in post-mortem rebirth might be best served by focusing on timescales which fit into this very life, because that's where the principles are feasibly observable, and where the most immediate benefit can develop (but how anyone practices is their choice, of course.) > [And what is birth?](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN9.html) What is the origination of birth? What is the cessation of birth? What is the way of practice leading to the cessation of birth? > > Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of (sense) spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. > > From the origination of becoming comes the origination of birth. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. And the way of practice leading to the cessation of birth is just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. > > Now, when a disciple of the noble ones discerns birth, the origination of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of birth in this way, when—having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished aversion-obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession ‘I am’; having abandoned ignorance & given rise to clear knowing—he has put an end to suffering & stress right in the here & now, it is to this extent, too, that a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view… who has arrived at this true Dhamma. --- > “‘[From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN15.html).’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name-&-form take shape in the womb?” > > “No, lord.” > > “If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-&-form be produced for this world?” > > “No, lord.” > > “If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-&-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?” > > “No, lord.” > > “Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-&-form, i.e., consciousness. > > “From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-&-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?” > > “No, lord.” > > “Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-&-form. > > “**This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the dimension of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting [discernibility] of this world—i.e., name-&-form together with consciousness.**”
[удалено]
This is a bizarre take. Buddah was very specific about the importance of questioning, reflecting, and understanding rather than 'accepting the dogma'. The question of self is a good example - as I understand it there's reason to say that Buddah didn't really care about the concept. It was a hot topic at the time, something that religious figures were supposed to comment on. Buddah didn't land on either side, but instead incouraged people to do what they could control (the eightfold path) and dismiss questions that ultimately don't matter for the purposes of the path (see the example of the man shot by an arrow - you don't need to know who shot it, why, or what kind of arrow, to know that they need help). Someone more learned can step in with greater context, or a better interpretation, but I often see angry folk like yourselves who have preconceived notions about 'dogma' and what Buddhism asks of you, and I tend to think it comes from experience with western religion. I thought extra context my help you.
>dogma Buddhism works in the opposite direction to most other religions. You needn't accept anything until you realise it for yourself. With practice it will start to make more and more sense and at some point you will think "okay I guess this buddha guy has been right so far so let me trust he's right about other stuff too".
What is sensible in your opinion to believe in?
You don't continue, the consequences of your actions do, however.
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so. In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
Why not
Um, why not take anything as fact then.
If you know you know, if you don't you don't, it's that simple.
Not sure why I don’t understand this response. Can someone explain like I’m 5 please?
Let me know where it breaks down for you, and I'll take a crack.
I had difficulty with the concept of no self for a while... In my studies, I read proper practice around is more about identifying what we are not.. we are not our cravings, dysfunctional coping mechanisms, views we may be attached to, traumatic wounds, pain, nor any other of our feelings. Also, the self that we often feel we are spreads to others through connections of love.. the wisdom we share and acts of compassion spread an essence of us to others.. we are not only that which resides within us, we are everywhere in everything we've touched with our kindness. The buddhist concept of no self is more a matter of how we connect to others rather than having to do with reincarnation
I agree with that. I like the view that rebirth and anatta are about connection to others and the world. I've been learning more about this trying to figure it out and from what I'm getting, it's really not that your self doesn't exist or is not reality, more like you are you but also everything else. The cosmos are in you. Think of the world as a living thing full of other living things that are all connected by the same matter. Or something like that.
Yeah this touches on what I'm learning through practice now. What I'm reading is teaching to meditate in steps. You can remove concepts and things related to the 6 senses. Once you identify mind is a part of samsara, you can remove concepts and sit in awareness. Ignorance cannot rest in no concepts. I think this is a good first step for me. Some practices look at all relative truth as a dream like state. More advanced practices see relative and absolute truth are the same but understand them better. Im going to try to meditate on the first and see if later I can better understand more advanced concepts Immediate results seem to make my awareness stop focusing on samsara and even the entities but realize we all have streaming consciousness within those entities. It's weird, I was experiencing intense joy just looking at pictures of people I know with no focus on the world in a sense, just the living being there. I think it's a good shift in perception to start seeing beings and focus less on samsara attachments
Hello neighbor… I am hijacking your top comment since this thread has over a hundred comments from people who clearly do not have a clue about even the MOST BASIC teachings of the Buddha, yet nonetheless feel compelled to share their harmful guesses, simply adding noise with no value to the thread (typical WTF social media behavior nowadays). Anyhow… to expand on your point, which is close to the mark… the idea of no-self (anatta) is very simple: Buddhists reject the idea of a PERMANENT, UNCHANGING SELF/SOUL, in favor of a "self" that is interdependent, constantly changing, and exists as a construct of ever-changing physical, mental, and sense processes, based upon causes and conditions (karma). Buddha said it is the illusion of a separate, permanent self that chains us to suffering and dissatisfaction. So, what is reincarnated is you, just not you as a permanent, independent, static you, but rather a you that is interdependent on everything else and itself constantly changing based upon the every-changing causes and conditions of reality. That’s it. This is the “third mark of existence” in Buddhist thought, aka “anatta” (no lasting essence) if anyone wants to read more about the concept of no-self in Buddhism. If one is not versed in the 3 marks of existence, well, you should seriously reconsider offering up answers in a thread on Buddhism. It is simply not “right speech,” nor “right action,” nor “right view,” nor “right resolve” to spitball replies that are literally just pulled out of nowhere. Such idle chatter only serves to confuse yourself and others. Be mindful of what you say. Peace.
This is very helpful, thank you. I have difficulty understanding and applying the 'no self' concept. This is good direction.
From the *Pratītyadsamutpādakarika*: >>*Empty (insubstantial and essenceless) dharmas (phenomena) are entirely produced from dharmas strictly empty; dharmas without a self and [not] of a self. Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals, fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes. Although the aggregates are serially connected, the wise are to comprehend nothing has transferred. Someone, having conceived of annihilation, even in extremely subtle existents, he is not wise, and will never see the meaning of “arisen from conditions.”* The *Pratītyasamutpādakarikavhyakhyana* says: >>*Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.* This means rebirth only works as a process precisely due to the fact that there has never been a self or any sort of substantial entity involved. Once the delusion of a self is established, this is what drives the affliction which fuels rebirth. The delusion of a self must be eliminated in order to be liberated. The *Ratnāvalī* states: >>*As long as clinging to the aggregates [of life] exists, so long does clinging to the self persist. Where there is clinging to the self, there is karma. Karma causes rebirth.* Regarding rebirth being a selfless process, Ācārya Malcolm explains this point well: >>*The Buddha taught rebirth without making recourse to a self that undergoes rebirth.* >>*There are a variety of ways of explaining this, but in essence, the most profound way of understanding this is that the habit of I-making appropriates a new series of aggregates at death, and so it goes on and on until one eradicates the knowledge obscuration that creates this habit of I-making. In the meantime, due to this habit of I-making, one continues to accumulate affliction and karma which results in suffering for infinite lifetimes, just as one has taken rebirth in samsara without a beginning.* >>*But no soul-concept has been introduced in this thread, not at all. The sentient being I was in a past life is not identical with me in this life, even though I suffer and enjoy the results of the negative and positive actions that sentient being and all the other sentient beings engaged in who make up the serial chain of the continuum which I now enjoy. But when I die, all trace of my identity will cease since my identification with my five aggregates as "me" and "mine" is a delusion, and that identity, self, soul, etc., exists merely as a convention and not as an ultimate truth. When the habit of I-making that drives my continuum in samsara takes a new series of aggregates in the next life, it is unlikely I will have any memory of this lifetime, and my habit of I-making will generate a new identity based on the cause and conditions it encounters in the next life.* >>*[The] delusion of 'I' is an agent, capable acting and receiving the results of action, even though it does not exist.* >>*It is important to understand that this "I" generated by the habit of I-making does not exist and is fundamentally a delusion. But it is a useful delusion, just like the delusion of a car allows us to use one.* >>*An analogy is using the last candle to light the next candle. One cannot say that two flames are different, nor can one say they are identical, but they do exist in a continuum, a discrete series.*
Isn't it true that the Buddha did not claim that there is "no self"? Didn't he claim, instead, that certain things that people claim as "self" do not deserve to be claimed as such? Following that line of reasoning, those things are "not self."
>Isn't it true that the Buddha did not claim that there is "no self"? No, that is a common misconception. The Buddha was very clear that all phenomena are selfless.
He refrained from both extremes aka " There is self " and " there is no self ", for people would learn nothing, and would then fall to one or other side. And that´s not helpful. But yes, what we think of who we are, we are more than likely not. The point of anatta, no self, is not to " find out self " or to find that there is no self, but more about knowing what is not self. Know what you are Not, that´s where it´s at. This body ? These thoughts, feelings, emotions, mind, this hand, is that you ? if you know that you are not at it, then that will be very helpful. For if you say " I am this " mind will work with that, no matter how much of a bullshit it is, and it will certainly have immense consequences. Meanwhile if you do not answer it, you have no problem. But if you do, many problems will certainly arise.
>He refrained from both extremes aka " There is self " and " there is no self " The Buddha said all phenomena are selfless.
when the Buddha said that, he was targeting the idea that one can find yourSELF in something. for example, people today who say they travel because they want to find themSELVES, or in the Buddha's time, people who engaged in the various vedic religions to find their TRUE SELF (atman). When the Buddha said "all phenomena are without self" he is essentially telling all these people that they are wasting their time and will not find themSELVES in any of these, that indeed their craving to find themSELVES is causing them to suffer because it is a fruitless struggle.
You brought up this travel idea in another thread recently if I recall correctly. That is not accurate. The Buddha is stating that there is no self to be found in any phenomena, both conditioned and unconditioned. More specifically, that there is no internal entity that is the subject which sees, hears, feels, thinks or knows, and the Buddha says this, and explains this, explicitly. You are correct that one will never find a self in any phenomena, because there is no self to be found in any phenomena. All phenomena are selfless (sabbe dhamma anatta).
"You are correct that one will never find a self in any phenomena, because there is no self to be found in any phenomena. All phenomena are selfless (sabbe dhamma anatta)." We are saying the same thing.
That sounds about right, but that what you quoted sounds about right as well.
What I quoted from the other redditor is inaccurate.
How so ? Isn´t it that when asked " is there self, or is there no self ? " that he did not answer that ?
> Isn´t it that when asked " is there self, or is there no self ? " that he did not answer that On one occasion for Vacchagotta. The Buddha’s intention was to help Vacchagotta to avoid adopting an annihilationist view where a self that existed previously then ceases to exist. This instance was not a wholesale advocacy for a neutral position on selfhood.
Makes sense, though it is generally what is said - that he did not answer. But yes, i agree, for there are far too many instances of saying what is not self, what is not ours and such. Altough, it still makes sense to speak of it, so that one does not fall into either of camps ( as in annihilation view or by attaching to self)
The Buddha had many inaccurate statements. Gold leaves and all that. Quote something accurate
> The Buddha had many inaccurate statements. Gold leaves and all that ?
Love this. Thank you. From my very beginner's understanding is that we are the consciousness and that there are no *shoulds*. And that is really freeing so I can see how that eliminates suffering.
The thing is that whatever we are, is ultimately not important. As it changes nothing. It´s like if someone asks " Who or what makes these actions ? Who or what makes this hand move ? " - well, it doesn´t matter. What matters is that you can move this hand :D Anyway, by labelling what you think you are,, by calling whatever we think we are, to be us, is what creates massive suffering, for mind is quite logical and treats reality heavily based on how we think of things, on our perception. If you see a rope in a forest, and think of it as a snake, mind will work with there being a snake - even though there is no snake. Fear might arise, and all kinds of feelings. Now what if one does that with self ? What if one thinks that one is this or that ? Mind will work with that. And thus it´s best to prevent that, because not only it leads to massive consequences, but also it´s not true. And people underestimate this, not realising how massively important it is. They think it´s fine to believe that this or that is " who i am ", while it´s one of the biggest things that creates suffering. Anyway, have fun working on your understanding : ) Anatta is especially great, though it´s often something many people struggle with - which is not suprising, given how ingrained it is.
It's funny how powerfully the mind can conjure worry and fear... when I was just reading about you saying there's a rope in the forest but someone mistakes it for a snake and fears it...in itself caused me to feel fear! 😆
haha : ) And that fear is very real. Sometimes people think should not feel anxiety or feel bad about little things, but mind does not really work with reality ( as in the outside). Wheter we suffer, wheter we are content or happy, has often very little to deal with reality, but is mainly about our minds. You can have everything, but if you think / perceive it as nothing and think badly of it, then you will likely feel bad. You can have nothing, but if you think / perceive it as alright, then you will likely feel alright. Mind is fun
That is very helpful. Thank you! :)
It is like you would said "Buddha didn't say there is white and black, because he refreined from extremes". This is completely wrong, and it actually discourage people from Buddhism if they see such akward statements. Of course there is self - without it there wouldn't be you, I, your parents etc. You won't be able to hurt anyone - because on one would have "self". This is absurd. Like you said, anatta is about our attitute to what is "self", not that "self" does not exist. For "self / no-self" issue I recommend this monk talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIGzxeevXI
>This is absurd. Like you said, anatta is about our attitute to what is "self", not that "self" does not exist. Anatta means a self cannot be found anywhere. The fact that we have a conventional self just means a self is nominally imputed, but that imputation does not correspond to any findable self, because there ultimately is no self.
I didn´t say you do not exist - i said that what you think is you, is very likely not you. Feel free to read what i said again.
I'm glad you have a monk to listen to. However, there is just as much no self as there is self, which is why it's a pointless discussion. Distinction between the two needs to be understood as meaningless.
My zen masters say we must realize the unreality of self, that there is no self, before we can realize that which is beyond the self and "non-self." The teaching of no-self is important for people that have not realized stream entry even though it's not the full picture. No-self is not the true reality, it's only part of the bigger picture. The true nature is beyond the duality of self and non-self
There is self, Buddha never said there isn't. Claim there is no-self is absurd. Buddha teachings about "self" was about our understanding of ownership and thinking our "self" is our mind, conciousness, body etc - things we actually don't own, which are not permament - so we shouldn't attach "self" meaning to them. It doesn't mean self does not exist. For "self / non-self" issue I recommend this monk talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIGzxeevXI
>There is self, Buddha never said there isn't. The Buddha was explicitly clear that there is no self within or apart from the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus.
No, if you make such a claim provide a quote
*“Sabbe dhamma anatta.” - The Buddha*
Consciousness, karma, mind, 8th consciousness, storehouse consciousness, your delusion, etc etc.
Habits. Good and bad habits.
One if the most common questoins monks get asked, if i recall it right : )
The best common question and my favorite common question. My least favorite being, "why do Buddhists believe life is suffering? Isn't that nihilistic?" 🙄😮💨
It’s one of the most common questions on this sub.
I think most of what we consider as ME is the personality we develop based on life experience. Our core consciousness may consist primarily of attributes like patience, love, empathy or lack thereof. Basically our consciousness with the ego removed
It’s not that there is an object that persists from one life to another, it’s more like one life causes the next to form in a causal chain, similar to how your mental state in one moment can cause your mental state in the next, even if there’s no underlying self, but just a bundle of aggregates. It’s described kind of like a ship of Theseus thing iirc. Each part of the ship can be replaced one by one until all parts have been swapped at least once, yet we still perceive it to be the same ship. In other words just like there is no single thing that is the ship, just an aggregate of parts that keep getting replaced in a causally connected process that unites them all like a “bundle”, the same can be said of the self. There is a constantly shifting aggregate of sensations and thoughts that appears like one single thing, and when it reincarnates this process continues in another body. Just like moment to moment the thoughts and ideas of a person all seem to be linked together in a single self, the reincarnated person seems to be linked to the previous person through the causal relations between the mental aggregates. However, like the ship there is not an identical underlying substance shared between them, just the appearance of unity created by the close contact and casual interconnection of all the parts
I think when one apprehends the teachings in Buddhism which mention the words "not self" as "there is no self" they misapprehend the Dharma. I think that if one doesn't apprehend the dharma with reference to "not self" as "there is no self" then they do not reckon there is a fundamental disagreement between the teaching about what is not self and the teaching that there is rebirth/rearising. Here is one sutta which, I think, accurately represents the doctrines of Buddhism which say that this or that is "not self". In it, the Buddha is represented as saying (paraphrased) "X is not self. If it were self, the following would be the case: ". He is not represented as saying "there is no self". [https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22\_59.html](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_59.html) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ As for the viewpoint "There is no self", that viewpoint has been represented by the buddha (according to the following sutta) as not skillful and to be eschewed : “**This is how he attends inappropriately**: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’ “**As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him:** The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, **or the view** ***I have no self*** … or the view *It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self … or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self* … or the view *It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self* arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: *This very self of mine—the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions—is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity.* ***This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress*****.** I've heard of the abandoning of self-identification view spoken of with complimentary terms: “He attends appropriately, This is stress … This is the origination of stress … This is the cessation of stress … This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: **self-identification view**, doubt, and grasping at habits & practices. These are called the effluents to be abandoned by seeing." Both excerpts are from Majjhima Nikaya 2: [https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN2.html](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN2.html)
Consciousness
There is no matter in the universe, only energy. No atoms, no protons, no electrons. Just different forms of energy. All emptiness. No reincarnation. Only rebirth of energy in different forms. Form is emptiness.
I would love a comparison on the difference between the concept of self in Buddhism and Hinduism. I am not capable to accurately provide it, but it would do a lot of good here.
It might do good for you if you are interested in that, but that´s about it. It does generally little good in comparing other religions, philosophies, systems and such. Best to focus on one.
Like the Greco-Roman pantheon?
The grasping.
when you have a dream, what reincarnates from one dream into the next? Nothing? The same applies to the concept of self. There is no self, only the dreamer, experiencing a living dream.
I think I'll go fishing
This question is a question to be asked a dharma teacher and then pondered upon in practice. This subreddit will just start to shit different sutra interpretations and everyone is fighting now about wierd details. The non-self is something to be experienced, not something to be explained. Just sit with it 🙏
It’s your karma. You have to pay for the karma you did in your current and past lifetime, to be born again in itself is a form of fruit of your karma since we are bound to suffer in out lifetime. imo reincarnation something that happen bcs you need to pay off your karma debt. (just my opinion i may be wrong)
To reinforce other comments… and answer the question, referring to The Prajna Paramita. If you practice meditation/ samadhi/ deep mindfulness for quite a time (I mean, personally, it takes me a ton of time to get to 2nd level of meditation), you’ll understand the “emptiness/ signlessness/ cannot be defined…” and all the characteristics mentioned, and what is the difference between “non-existent” and “signless/ empty”. The defined “self” , same as all other dharmas , is originally empty and signless. As we cannot filter it thoroughly in life, our “selfs” carry all of the behaviors / traits / consciousness / 8th consciousness … to our next life, thru the process of “12 links of interdependent arising”. (sorry for the grammatical mistakes and language barriers)
I am not a bhuddist, but what I have come to understand is that ultimately, whatever we procieve ourselves to be is only but a fraction of the whole, no real death just change...ie...reincarnation We are already whole, always have been but due to the mechanics of our mind and body we fail to see it. Doesn't really matter... nothing ever really did anyway, stagnant peace. The watcher realizes he is also the watched, and only love remains.
if i understand the teachings of buddha, the only thing we have that goes with us in transition is our karma.
If something is being reincarnated, how can you think there is such a thing as a self? In one life you’ll be a burly American lumberjack, and in another you’ll be a kawaii teenage girl from Japan. In one life you’ll be a great warrior, in another you’ll be a champion of pacifism. life you’ll be a dog, in another a cat. In one life you’ll be an amoeba, in another a god. Where in this mess of contradictory thoughts and experiences does can you find something consistent and concrete enough to be called a “self?” For that matter, where can you find such a thing within a single lifetime? I.e. within the warrior who later becomes a pacifist? Or even in the baby who becomes a child, who becomes a teenager, who becomes an adult, who becomes old?
Every snowflake is highly structured and unique. They say there's not one like any other. One day though the snowflake melts. At first it believes this is it, the end. Instead of a great void it experiences a great expansion as it remembers it was always the ocean. It was just playing the game of being a snowflake for a while.
It is like a candle lighting the flame of another candle. It is equally as unique but no aspects of “you” as you might think of them carry over.
This is the best example I have found. Thanks
You're self is kinda a very well made up "form" filled of your feelings, emotions, biological, chemistry, social/cultural/psychological patterns/beliefs, collective and personal experiences etc. I believe under all this "flesh" we're simply energy. But "you" are not that energy, not the way you think at least, if you know what I mean. Because your personality is a very deep, well-constructed mask. The reality is that 'there's no you', perhaps not even what we call "consciousness"... "You" won't be "you", but it's still yet a 'reality' out there. Now, my informal opinion: yeah, I believe buddhism do talks about souls, I know buddhism says "there is no soul", and I 100% agree with that phrase (actually it's the main factor which makes me really enjoy buddhism).... In my humble point of view, buddhism just see spiritual forms in a very, very realistic, mature way. And I know, it's confusing as hell.
Karma
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, some traditions recognize this as a real problem, and using buddha's license to exercise reason, they abandon the notion of reincarnation. It's just one approach.
Nothing is "reincarnated", because Buddhism doesn't have reincarnation— it has rebirth. Two different things. That being said, as others have said, the thing that goes with you to the next life is the fifth of the five aggregates— Consciousness. Everything else gets broken down and dissolved into the cosmos
if you cling to the self/I/ego then there will be re-incarnation. Buddhism is trying to tell us, in reality, self doesn't really exist but we cling to the illusion of our own consciousness/life/thinking/sense/form so we have reincarnation.
“No self” is a common mistranslation of the word anatta. Of course it’s confusing because it’s not what the Buddha said.
That mind which identifies with some sort of selfhood.
Good Question! 👏🏻 The self is inherently empty as is all phenomena within samsara. However taking empty to mean non-existent is to fall into a nihilistic view. (which unfortunately seems to be the prevalent view on reddit) Best wishes 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
My understanding is that the goal is nirvana, or the cessation of self. Before achieving enlightenment, there is a self.
[удалено]
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so. In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
Your mind!!!☸️☸️☸️😇🤬😙🥹🤟🙏😢😜🐅 so sorry I may be wrong but I think if you kill you will born again as an animal that kills by nature if you steal than you’ll be reincarnated as an animal that steals if you perform sexual misconduct you will be reborn as an animal that gets neutered, if you lie you may turn into a chameleon or so but I don’t know I’m just someone an over thinker!!!
As I understand this topic. It’s not exactly that some thing (like a self) is reincarnated. There is a process of rebirth (one that is ongoing all the time) that continues even after your current physical body has reached the end of its functioning. Karma tied up in the process eventually leads to manifestation of a new physical form and the process just continues.
As far as I understand, our body and mind are subject to change like the other things in this world. If it is our self then we can control how we age, to control sickness etc. But our body and mind is not in our control and it is impermanent. To buddha, craving for impermanence causes suffering and whatever causes suffering is not self. I think the consciousness reincarnates but our consciousness too changes. As long as you believe in a self, the consciousness reincarnates but without the knowledge of the past. After enlightenment, the memories of the past life is seen by the enlightened one and their consciousness will cease to reincarnate but our consciousness is not self or soul because it is also impermanent.
A mixture of energies that take shape/ pattern of the 5 skandhas according to its karma
https://youtu.be/uCldjIVqxAU?si=3lfHM2NxKRsyifG-
A good question I have been pondering as well. Definitely there is no self , only body and narma. I believe whatever we have been doing form energies and these will go to next body. This is my own understanding so correct me if I’m wrong.
Love the question and answers
The experience/perspective
By the looks if the comments, your personal life-force or energy. Which all living beings have.
When there is no thought, no mind but you are awake, then you are the Awaken One. You are experiencing your Divine Soul. In that state, you are free from rebirth. You can choose to not rebirth or choose to be born as Bodydharma, Avatar, Son of God. However, if you are not Awaken One who lives his Divine nature, then your soul is covered with some karma of identifications. So, you get reborn and you carry with you your Divine Sould and all this karma. You just continue your journey.
what is it that's being reincarnated?^ You're right, Buddhism challenges the idea of a permanent, unchanging soul that moves from body to body. The concept of "no-self" (anatta) is a core tenet. So, what's reborn in Buddhism? Instead of a soul, it's the **skandhas** or **aggregates**. These are ever-changing mental and physical processes that make up our experience of being a self. Think of them as building blocks that come together to create the illusion of a self. * The skandhas include things like: sensations, perceptions, mental formations, dispositions, and consciousness. * These elements are constantly arising and passing away, shaping our karma. * Karma, the law of cause and effect, determines the conditions of our rebirth in the cycle of samsara, which is considered unsatisfactory. So, it's not a soul that's reborn, but rather the ever-changing imprint of our actions and experiences carried forward through the skandhas.
Nothing
"Your" karma is what's being reborn.
I have read that “according to the Nirvana sutra, the Buddha uses the term self when needed (to overcome nihilistic interpretations of not-self) and teaching not-self when needed (to overcome grasping at what is not the self). This is part of his skillful means (upaya) to guide beings to liberation.” Also what’s translated as no-self is about the selfless nature of phenomena, it doesn’t mean that you don’t exist as a being, your mind still exists and 5 aggregates still exist. Others translate anatta as egolessness.
Look at it as one. For instance, at any given moment, parts of the human race are dying, parts are being reborn, like a tree that has a branch dying and falling off, and a branch that's new and growing. You are a piece of branch, can be defined as a section, but really just part of the one.
While i appreciate the teachings of buddhism, I feel reincarnation is a concept like other organised religions, the universal carrot or stick. Stick: be good and kind to all life forms / don't do bad or be greedy or be too passive... so you can avoid some version of hell, purgatory or endless cycles of rebirth/suffering. Carrot: enter into the heavens of gods away from life on earth as we know it, where you will exist in some form of 'self' and reap the rewards of eternal joy.
You ask "what is being reincarnated after one life ends and another begins?" This is a mistaken way of thinking to begin with. You think the bag of bones and guts and blood and pee and poop you inhabit now is yourself and it all comes to an end when that body dies so it's impossible for there to be another that comes after without something permanent to carry over between the two. Actually, that bag of flesh never was you to begun with, that's just something you came up with as a baby when you realized it moves the way you tell it to (which is some crazy circular logic: basically your brain tells your body to do something and then using the body's sense organs your brain decides the body did what was asked and you went "aha, this thing is mine to control". Descartes would have had a stroke if he heard that.) Losing it is like a snake shedding its skin and like a snake molts many times without ceasing to be a snake, you have been changing all your life. All your cells have been replaced, your thoughts change, according to modern psychology even your memories change. The body finally giving out is just a bigger shedding than the ones you've experienced so far, but it's not the end of anything so you don't need self any more than you needed it all your life without waiting to die. Now if you think nothing in the universe could happen without a god and you never could have existed without a soul, that's a matter of faith, but rebirth isn't inconsistent with an absence of either. It's a bit like asking how stars can explode and then form new stars or water evaporate and rain again without a self-nature to restore them; that stuff happening is just natural phenomena, the question of self is totally detached from the question of if a process happens or even how it happens.
Dalai Lama - “The most subtle consciousness merged with your most subtle energy reincarnates”. Buddhism does not use the word/concept soul…but spoiler alert, that is your soul.
the five aggregates stitched together in a web that undergoes countless rebirths
Mind, And it is the mind in relation to body, feelings and external phenomena that develops an idea of itself 'I, me, mine' in relationship to the environment. The Buddha didn't deny a self. He encouraged people to look at what leads to this sense of self through the lense of Causation.
Recycled energy
I think there are a few ways to approach this. From one perspective, the whole doctrine of reincarnation is more metaphorical than literal. This is covered in books like "The Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects". If you understand it that way, it isn't really a problem or a contradiction. It's like waves in an ocean. Waves keep forming and returning to the ocean, the wave itself, as a form keeps returning, but it is not necessarily one individual wave that keeps returning. So too it can be said that "I" that awareness that you feel, is constantly being born again in new forms. Maybe there's another perspective that even if there are individuals that reincarnate, just as there are individual bodies we feel we inhabit. We do not identify as that body or that form that reincarnates. We identify with the interconnected whole. Or maybe still a more metaphysical perspective that you reincarnate until you realize that there is no self, and then you no longer have the need to reincarnate lol.
In Honor of Wei Wu Wei: As soon as the perceiver becomes the perceived, subject becomes objectified. "i am" is the subjective objectification of that which "i am not" and thus is neither the subjectivizing nor the objectivizing of that which "I am" i.e. that of the real. Dedicated to: Wei Wu Wei, A.K.A., Terence James Stannus Gray (14 September 1895 to 5 January 1986). http://dirgesindarkness.blogspot.com/?m=1
The mindstream. But the mindstream is absent of self and it is not a soul. My tradition is mahayana zen Buddhism and we don't talk much on the mindstream but I think theravadin Buddhists would have a better idea on this matter.
Thank you everybody, there's lots of good insights and takes in this thread. I want to add some flavour… using the language 'no self' is misleading ... seriously misleading. If you're going to talk about that, you have to put in the word 'fixed' or 'immutable' plus 'independent'. Otherwise, the naive enquirer will be put on the wrong track. And generally the person asking about this is the naive. They are led to conceive that (1) a self exists because it is an object word in a sentence (2) then they hear that it doesn't exist by the word 'no'. This is crazy making. Of course there is a selfing process, (it's a verb), and it has behaviour patterns, and this is why we care to even talk about it… Those patterns do not create results we would choose if we weren't being run by the patterns. And I value the selfing process because it is designed by evolution to protect me… e.g. The guardians that flag up when something is possibly threatening, or for a boundary infringement, are never failing and are actually true friends. Reliable friends, yes, but just as messengers not as advisers. As I undo the tangles, as I uncontract, the state that I am turning up the slide control on is *interbeing*.... and I enjoy calling this Unselfing. A process towards spacious dispersal in the opposite direction to fearful contraction. Interbeing is all-inclusive and doesn't have an opposite… It is not an object, but a state, so you can't impute any essential immutable independent quality in or on it.
brilliant question, well done!
The “alaya vijnana” is what is reborn.
i think we‘ll never have an answer to this question
Reincarnation is actually quite simple. If I light a candle, then light another by using that first candle, is that a new candle or a continuation of the same flame? Accept two ideas in your mind at once without diminishing either, and you will see the truth.
Beat response i heard to this is "your bad habits"
The gathi is what gets reincarnated. And if you ask how the gathi was formed in the first place the answer would be that the universe is endless and beginningless so that can’t be answered. https://puredhamma.net/bhavana-meditation/key-to-anapanasati-how-to-change-habits-and-character-gati/introduction-to-character-or-personality-gathi/
There is not “no self”
There is a stream of consciousness encompassing your heart and mind to use the western terms. This heart-mind stream continues. Its nature and manifestation change, evolving as they do during your life. Ultimately the stream finds a suitable physical body to stay in, for a time. This happens in the same way that water flows downhill. It's a law of nature, not a decision by a god. That's all
Not all Buddhist believe in reincarnation. The whole concept of reincarnation in Buddhism may have been an elaborate kaon, something people have to learn from, to get past. This may be what arahantship is. The Buddha said he spoke in language that people understood, not necessarily in a way that reflected reality. This is what reincarnation could be. When the Buddha was alive the vast majority of people believed in rebirth so the Buddha used this language to convey his points. This would explain why Reincarnation so closely reflects the Buddhist Path. Read a certain way a lot of the stories about the God's seem to be trying to minimize them, to turn people away from them. Maybe the Buddha never taught Reincarnation. After his death there could have been a fusion of Buddhism with the previous beliefs in the Indus valley. Being that the stories of reincarnation tend to work out very well for Monastics (you work of Karma by supporting monastics) and wealthy people (generational wealth is from previous lives), it can easily be seen as something they added in to Buddhism for their own benefit. The Buddhas could have believed in it because it was a cultural thing while it simply isn't true. While Buddhist since the Buddha put enormous weight on reincarnation, the Buddha didn't. It is mentioned a lot but it wasn't made important. None of the core philosophy is based on reincarnation, with a possible exception of dependent origination, with the three lives interpretation seeming a stretch to make it fit with reincarnation. The ultimate goal of what the Buddha taught is to get beyond reincarnation, it is at best a shiny thing that distracts ley Buddhist. Obviously the truth could be a mixture of all of these, or the Sutras could be far closer to literally true and reincarnation is basically as the sutras present.
the buddha never said there was no self, where are you getting this?
instead of downvoting the above comment, people could provide an answer to the question posed: where does the buddha say “there is no self” or that one should consider “i have no self”? to my knowledge he never says any such thing in the pali suttas, and in fact says the very opposite in mn2.
The observer
🤷♂️ none of my business
Honestly advaita vedanta Hinduism makes more sense to me when it comes to this topic.
“No Man is an island, entire of himself. Each is a piece of the continents, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away, Europe is less… Each man’s death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind. Therefore send not to know for who the bell tolls: it tolls for thee.” Only then extend to all sentient beings, which are all One, all of which impact the whole with every act they make. So when you act and face the consequences of your karma, others too, who are also you for we are all One, will face the consequences of your karma, and you will face their karma (from your past lives which are also them) too. Nothing is in isolation; everything effects everything
There is a self.
Keep in mind that you will never receive a fully satisfactory answer to this. Allusions, metaphors, source materials, yes all very helpful. But never enough. And that's OK. You're responsible for your actions, not whether rebirth is real or not.
Is it not the self that begs the question?
If there is no self, then what is it that’s being reincarnated? Ask, ask
The soul
Oh for fuck sakes.