How can there be no-self when there seems to be a self?

Q & A
33

Hi Shaun

I have tried to explain how I see this in other posts on this forum.

Firstly I disagree with the translation of anattā as ‘not/non/no self’. For me, attā is the Pāli equivalent of Sanskrit atmā, which certainly means ‘soul’ and I think the Buddha would have used ‘anaham’ to mean ‘not self’, but I have not found it in the Pāli texts.

There is a place in the suttas, https://suttacentral.net/en/mn2#7, where doubt about one’s existence is said to be an obstacle of progress. There doubting the existence of self – ahaṃ (‘Am I/Do I exist?’ - ‘ahaṃ nu khosmi?’ and ‘Am I not/Do I not exist’ - ‘No nu khosmi?’) is said to be unwise reflection and leads to various wrong views about soul – attā (‘Atthi me attā’ti’, or ‘Natthi me attā’ti’). Some may think that means one has to have faith that one does not really exist. I think it simply means, one has gone off track in the question ‘to be or not to be’.

I think the Buddha accepts the existence of the Five Aggregates, but they are conditioned and impermanent. I equate them with an impermanent self that everyone has. The goal, for me, is ending the Five Clinging Aggregates, (which I translate to one word as ‘ego’, not ‘self’), that is, suffering, and once they are eradicated one just has an impermanent self that one knows as such (as it really is).

It is not the Five Aggregates (an impermanent self) that one has to end, imo. But I understand that is assumed from the first part of the definition of suffering, that is, the First Noble Truth, because it speaks of birth, aging and death. These are taken to be physical, but there is evidence in the Pāli texts that the Buddha used them spiritually.

I follow the summary sentence of the First Noble Truth, ‘that is, in brief the five CLINGING aggregates are suffering’. For me that summarises what had been said before and points to not assuming what he had just been spoken of was the Five Aggregates (without clinging).

Secondly I disagree with the translations of the first of the three knowledges the Buddha said he developed on the night of his enlightenment. It is there that the ideas of ‘past lives’ comes in. That would be ‘pubbe-jīvam’ in Pāli, but that is also not found in the Pāli texts. In that paragraph the Buddha talks of many past births, not lives. For me each birth is the arising of ego (the five clinging aggregates) in this very life.

For me there is no RE-birth as that suggests there is something personal going from one birth to another. Since I understand each birth is the birth of (an) ego (identity) in this very life, each one is different. For example, at one time I identified with certain beliefs and called myself ‘Christian’ after some time, I (ego) stopped doing that (died as a Christian) and was born ‘a Buddhist’. Both involve clinging and are suffering, imo. Instead I could just recognise my belief as belief and not cling to it as the truth and try to label myself by it.

This is the only way I have found to understand the Buddha’s teaching so that it is relevant to ‘this very life’ that he is recorded to have said often.

best wishes

2 Likes
34

yes, Ven Brahmali is a very adamant proponent of the doctrine of rebirth

35

Buddha is known to have criticized his contemporaries who taught doctrines of a single life and didn’t recognize the law of kamma, which by inference means he held the opposite opinion, or in his case most likely firsthand knowledge

dismissing rebirth amounts to dismissing the veracity of the suttas content, because having dismissed veracity of one doctrine, which is rebirth, what reasons does one have to agree with other tenets and teachings? why should they be considered more reliable and trustworthy? what are the criteria to Dhamma cherry picking, personal preferences and preconceptions which certain teachings more easily fit into? this is the approach to the Dhamma the so called secular Buddhism is notorious for, but a puthujjana, an ignorant person, cannot distinguish between veracity and falsity, therefore their attempt at creating a personalized ‘playlist’ of Dhammic concepts is a futile endeavor with a questionable result

1 Like
36

Can you provide any quotations on the criticism of single life doctrines? Not on kamma - this has nothing to do with it, kamma can live happily in one-life interpretations. I have nothing against kamma teaching.

One would have exactly no reasons - but you put it backwards, opposite to reality. I didn’t sign up to the club, saying: from now on I’m Buddhist and I accept everything that a good Buddhist should believe in. Why would I accept anything on faith? I don’t. If I did, I would never look beyond Catholicism. I would have no need for that - this is life, that is heaven, if you want to get to heaven, live in such a way. End of the story, no need to look for anything more.

Buddha said, he has a way of practice to attain the end of suffering in this life. That is where it gets interesting. Do I want to be happy now? Of course, what a question!

Then I read what Buddhism is all about, what is the practice and the teaching. I put hypotheses and try them. I did, and Buddhism did prove to be good in many respects to me. The thing is that I still haven’t found the use for rebirth - it’s pointless to me.

I don’t say that there is no rebirth - maybe there is, I have no way of knowing - just like I don’t know if there is a God or if everyone has a soul, but that’s not the point. The point is I currently have no use for this concept. I would love to understand what suttas mean by rebirth, or what is it that gets reborn, then some of those suttas would probably be more meaningful - but just taking that and blindly believing it without understanding is out of the question for me.

37

the suttas also talk about various states of higher consciousness and supranormal powers one attains through jhana practice, neither them are verifiable by an ordinary person, do you dismiss them as well?

that’s the cherry picking part, Buddhism seems to be having in the West this air of rational teaching, where faith has no place and use which is attractive to people with analytical and logical mindset cultivated in the West and to whom faith is a purview and recourse of simple minded people, but faith/confidence/conviction (saddha) is a big part of practice, because the fetter of doubt is only abandoned by a sotapatti, so having faith is not only normal but encouraged and commended in the suttas, in particular the faith in the Gotama as the Buddha and in his teaching to wit

The Blessed One is an arahant, perfectly enlightened, accomplished in true knowledge and conduct, fortunate, knower of the world, unsurpassed trainer of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.

The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.

AN 4.52

here’s an example of faith application exactly to the concept of rebirth

When this was said, Sīha the general said to the Blessed One: “Bhante, I do not go by faith in the Blessed One concerning those four directly visible fruits of giving declared by him. I know them, too. For I am a donor, a munificent giver, and I am dear and agreeable to many people. I am a donor, a munificent giver, and many good persons resort to me. I am a donor, a munificent giver, and I have acquired a good reputation as a donor, sponsor, and supporter of the Saṅgha. I am a donor, a munificent giver, and whatever assembly I approach—whether of khattiyas, brahmins, householders, or ascetics—I approach it confidently and composed. I do not go by faith in the Blessed One concerning these four directly visible fruits of giving declared by him. I know them, too. But when the Blessed One tells me: ‘Sīha, with the breakup of the body, after death, a donor, a munificent giver, is reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world,’ I do not know this, and here I go by faith in the Blessed One.”

AN 5.34

2 Likes
38

So, there is nothing but dhammas in a stream of dependant origination or conditional arising.
In the ultimate sense, it seems that there is really no rebirth of a ‘self’ because the self doesn’t exist, but there is some kind of stream of dhammas that make up ‘you’ that go from one ‘life’ into the next. But is there really ‘life’? Our idea of life is based on the conventional way of seeing things as in trees, mountains etc. In the ultimate way of seeing things everything is just dhammas, including ‘life’. Its all just just dhammas in a stream of dependant origination or conditional arising. So rebirth is happening to ‘you’ right now. Right ??? :grinning::grin::laughing:

1 Like
39

Do you believe, that jhana’s are not verifiable by ordinary person? Because if I did believe that, I wouldn’t be here. To be free from suffering is to get Awakened, or to at least remove most of the suffering you need to get to Stream Entry. To do that, you need jhanas, at least according to the suttas. There are jhanas everywhere in there.

I did put a hypothesis there: yeah, maybe if I meditate long / correctly, I will get to some new states, that might be possible, let’s try. I tried, and I had some nice experiences - far from jhana, but for me a proof good enough to try and see if there’s more. So I’m not going on faith here, I stated a hypothesis, tested it, and came out with a promising result.

As for other supernormal attainments, so far I haven’t found use for them, so they might just be fairy tales to me.

No, that is experimentation. That is looking for what might be useful and trying it for yourself. That is the process Buddha himself went through, although being honest - he put incomparably more effort than I.

‘Sīha, with the breakup of the body, after death, a donor, a munificent giver, is reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world,’ I do not know this, and here I go by faith in the Blessed One.”

That is completely different. Does this knowledge change anything? Was Sīha a donor before he was told that this gives a good rebirth or after? According to the text, it’s after - which doesn’t change anything in the situation. It’s like saying “Well I don’t know, but if you say so - that’s a nice bonus”, it’s not a view that Sīha will base his behaviour on, he would be a donor anyway. He didn’t base his behaviour on a belief.

40

Sure, and you probably don’t have much choice in the matter. But do you at least see how others can have a use for it?

41

Hi Brother-Joe,
Thanks for taking the time to give your explanation, it is much appreciated!

Brother-Joe > “Secondly I disagree with the translations of the first of the three knowledges the Buddha said he developed on the night of his enlightenment.”

Shaun > Your saying that this refers to ‘births’, not lives. How about the Jataka tales, these are memories of quite personal stories of ‘past lives.’ If it was just a birth that he should only be able to remember a being rather then stories, what are your thoughts?

Everything you are saying makes 100% sense to me, and I could fully believe in rebirth as a process in the way the Theravadans describe it. I guess the issue that messes everything up is the ability to ‘remember past lives or even past rebirths’. If it was a process, such as a candle or mango tree analogy then how is it possible to remember the details of previous rebirths or past lives? This of course also puts a crack in the non-self theory as well. As soon as one takes out the ability to remember past lives rebirth, everything makes perfect sense…

42

Hi Shaun

No problem at all. My pleasure. Thanks for your considered reply.

I follow the idea that ‘all conditioned things are impermanent’ and to me, this applies to the Buddhist texts (and the Buddhist religion - the Buddha sāsana is said to only last a certain period of time). They change (are changed) over time and so I take a historical approach to the study of them. That is, some texts or parts of texts are older, more authentic, less changed, than others.

I understand that the Jataka are all taken to be later texts by most scholars that take a historical approach and I think any similar stories found in the texts generally taken to be older, e.g. the first Four Nikayas, are to me, later additions. I have heard that the Jataka have material that is popular legend common to other Indian traditions. In short I don’t accept the Jataka as the teaching of the Buddha.

I do believe that the Dhamma is most likely unchanging and it is what all enlightened people of all time realise, but for me, that is very different from the Collection of Buddhist texts (Tipiṭaka) or the Buddhist religion/The Buddha’s teaching (Buddha-sāsana).

For me, ‘being’ conditions ‘birth’ (they are related but different) and it is the birth (aging and death of the ego) that is recalled and learnt from, such that wisdom and insight arises, in order not to do it again.

I believe, unlike commonly taught, that a suffering being or a happy being both have the same opportunity to understand suffering and free themselves from it. If they come to know what is wise reflection and if they have their basic physical needs met. We have schools of Buddhism based on the idea that one must take birth as a heavenly being to have the best (only real?) chance to realise true freedom.

Best wishes

43

Hi Brother-Joe,
Thanks again for the discussion. Am I correct in saying that you believe the Jataka Tales were ‘made up’ later on.

I said before, “I guess the issue that messes everything up is the ability to 'remember past lives or even past rebirths.”

You said: “In that paragraph the Buddha talks of many past births, not lives.”

I don’t quite understand what you mean in regards to the difference between, ‘past lives and past births.’

With Metta.

44

Hi Shaun

Yes, I believe the Jataka Tales were made up later on, but like any folk tales, they can still have good messages in them that are not particular to the Buddha’s teaching.

Firstly I have not found RE-births, punna-jāti in the Pāli texts at all. So that would be an interpretation of some Pāli word. For there to be RE-birth, it would mean there is something from the first birth that can be identified with the second birth and that seems to be getting close to the soul theory.

For me, in the Buddha’s teaching, life only happens once for each person. It is the arising persistence and passing of the Five Aggregates (self) and would last about 80 years. There are many lives, in the sense that many people have lived throughout history and it is out of compassion for myself and future generations that I try to end greed (which destroys the environment), hatred (which leads to abuse of others) and ignorance (the first cause of the rest).

Birth, in the Buddha’s teaching as I understand it,is psychological, not physical and it is suffering because it is the birth of a particular combination of the Five CLINGING Aggregates (ego/soul idea…). This occurs many times within one lifetime and there can be overlapping ones and they can last for decades. E.g. I can identify as Christian and Australian from a very young age till the end of my life.

It (birth) happens when identity view takes hold based on the ‘I am’ conceit. One identifies with one of the Five Aggregates and then they become the Five Clinging Aggregates. They are verbalised as identity statements such as:
I am fat (form)
I am hot (sensation)
I am Buddhist (idea)
I am angry (emotion)
I am one with the universe (awareness).

Seen rightly, I believe the noble disciple would rather think/say:
My body is fat/I have extra weight
I feel hot
I believe the Buddha freed himself from conditioning (etc)
I feel angry
This is perception of unlimited consciousness.

I hope I have explained my ideas clearly.

best wishes

1 Like
45

Yes in a manner of speaking! We shouldn’t entirely disregard the ‘content’ of those dhammas either (if we consider dhammas or aggregates themselves as the ‘container’). The point at which Nibbana without residue (anupadisesa nibbana or parinibbana) happens is dependent on the content i.e. whether those dhammas contain the 37 factors of enlightenment (or the Noble Eightfold Path, if you like). Rebirth also happens at this point if those factors are absent at an adequate strength.

Belief (that’s all we can have sometimes) in rebirth is mundane Right view. It’s important but apparently not essential:

[Kalama sutta] If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.’ This is the first assurance he acquires.

"‘But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.’ This is the second assurance he acquires’. AN3.65

On the other hand (Supramundane) Right view has Dependant Origination (Four Noble Truths). I think we require both for the full frame of reference.

With metta

1 Like
46

In a mango, genes pass information. The gene itself doesn’t pass forward but information is automatically transcribed. Matter arises and passes away, but the information (reifying it here) is ‘reflected’ through the generations. In the candle the first flame provides heat (the final cause that’s required) for the next wick, wax and oxygen to burst into flame. Mangoes and Candles don’t have consciousness or spiritual faculties which allows them to see their past -I assume. Even if they did it still wouldn’t be ‘Self’. No Self (or not Self) doesn’t mean there is nothing or was nothing. There was something there but it didn’t bear the characteristics a Self should have (like ability to control, permanence, satisfactoriness etc). It was only dhammas (or aggregates) arising and passing away. It is a misperception to say there was a Self there.

With metta

1 Like
47

Mat, not sure if I 100% understand you.

Mat > ‘In a mango, genes pass information. The gene itself doesn’t pass forward but information is automatically transcribed. Matter arises and passes away, but the information (reifying it here) is ‘reflected’ through the generations.’

SR > But this type of stuff is a physical lineage; with humans we can look into haplogroups (DNA) to find out family history, this is the same with trees or any other flora and fauna. Past lives is non physical.

Mat > I assume. Even if they did it still wouldn’t be ‘Self’. No Self (or not Self) doesn’t mean there is nothing or was nothing.

Of course there was something there in the past :slight_smile:. The issue is past life memories; which says there is a personal self. eg. The 14th Dalai Lama.

48

Hi Brother_Joe,

BJoe > I believe the Jataka Tales were made up later on, but like any folk tales, they can still have good messages in them that are not particular to the Buddha’s teaching.

SR > As an amateur historian, I couldn’t agree with you more.

BJoe > Firstly I have not found RE-births, punna-jāti in the Pāli texts at all.

SR > That’s so interesting! I wonder if anyone else has found something. Maybe a new thread could be opened to answer this question…

BJoe > For me, in the Buddha’s teaching, life only happens once for each person…

SR > Everything you are saying makes perfect understandable sense to me. But do you think your idea/thoughts/theory in the current world of Buddhism is new/non-mainstream?

In Tibetan Buddhism there is of course the “THE 14TH DALAI LAMA.” I have noticed that Ajahn Brahm consistently talks about personal past lives in a personal sense, especially in regards to karma. I.e. My bad karma made me further away from the toilet when I was sick. He also talks about people that claim to remember ‘their own’ past lives. I have asked him about no-self, past lives… He used the Mango Tree Analogy; once there is B then A is extinguished and so on; but when I ask about how there can be past life memories… well… mmmm… When I ask Chan Buddhists they talk about past lives in very, very personal terms.

49

Thanks @Mat :anjal:

50

If it’s useful to someone on their path, that’s great. Why would I have a problem with that?

51

You didn’t answer my question. And your question doesn’t follow from what I said, not by any stretch. :thinking:

52

I’m not sure, what do you expect me to answer here. If I find no use for it, then that’s it, no use for it from my point of view. If you find one - great. If that doesn’t answer your question, then I probably don’t understand the question - you might rephrase it, maybe it will become clearer to me.