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

Q & A
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.

53

It is not difficult to do a search of the Three Baskets, commentaries and sub-commentaries now that it is all digital. I don’t know where else one would look. I guess it could be in even later texts, but I wouldn’t be interested in them.

Oh no. Definitely not mainstream. I see my understanding of change or impermanence, for example as between, the Abhidhammic micro-second to micro-second and eternalism. I don’t think either can be tested in experience.

Re teachers talking about and claims to remember past lives: that is all fine, people can interpret and claim as they like, just like me. I try to question popular assumptions. Regarding claims to remember them: I do not give credit to people claiming past life memory, whose present life memory is not perfect.

1 Like
54

Maybe an example will help: I don’t have any use for feminine hygiene products but I see how others can find them useful. I don’t need to go into the details…

Do you see what I’m asking now?

55

[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:44, topic:5041”]
Firstly I have not found RE-births, punna-jāti in the Pāli texts at all.[/quote]

Try jāti punappunaṃ, “birth again and again”.

Also words beginning with punar-, especially the verb punarāgacchati and its derivative participles.

6 Likes
56

The difference is, that I do understand more or less how feminine hygiene products work and what they’re for, so I do see a use for them. I do not understand how rebirth is supposed to work, given there is no soul, self or permanent essence. I also don’t know of any such mechanism from physics or other fields of science. Thus, to answer your question: no, I don’t see a use for it at all, not for me and not for others. Accepting that there is rebirth makes some sutta passages clearer, but that is a big and groundless assumption to take.

57

What matters is that the Buddha was an “adamant proponent of the doctrine of rebirth.”

9 Likes
58

Thanks for the straight-up answer.

Dependent origination is the mechanism that explains rebirth. There is no soul, self, or permanent essence involved.

What the big and groundless assumption is, in my opinion, is taking the teachings of a few modern Buddhist monks and their followers who reject rebirth in a few of their statements over all the ancient teachings. Did any of the “original” 18 schools reject it? Or any of the other sects rising soon after? Do we have records of any of these ancient Dhamma seekers rejecting rebirth? You’d think that out of all these people in this smorgasbord of sects with different interpretations of Buddhadhamma who were far more proximate to the Buddha and his teachings than we are…out of all of them, you’d think at least one would reject rebirth as part of their interpretation, wouldn’t you? But no, not a single one AFAIK. Or even in the intervening 2000+ years: how many Buddhist thinkers have rejected rebirth?

Its rejection seems to be a 20th century+ phenomenon, one I think that scientism is mostly to blame for. I’m definitely not anti-science, but I have a dim view of the uncritical, mechanistic scientism that has been accepted by many minds, many without even knowing it, and become the 21st century religion that continues to grow.

1 Like
59

Conventionally speaking this is correct. The Tatagatha and the Dalai Lama are conventional titles. However this is not to say that there was no continuity. Heraclitus said you can’t walk into the same river twice (as it is constantly changing), though the river still retains the same name, and the same name is used for a different river each time it is used.

Seeing past lives is similar. The identified person is the ‘same’, but actually different life to life, moment to moment.

Of the Three knowledges (tevijja), the knowledge of past life memories is a conventional knowledge as is the one which knows kamma. So the arahanths using this faculty will still see themselves (or other’s) rebirths/kamma. However they are aware that phenomena cannot be considered as self (anatta).

The knowledge of ending effluents is wisdom related and there would be no conventional designations or beliefs involved.

With metta

Matheesha

2 Likes
60

Brother_Joe, thank you for this honest discussion! It has been most interesting and useful.

61

jhana is no more immediately verifiable by a worldling than rebirth is, the ability of recollection of past lives rests on mastery of jhana, but a person may and in fact is very likely to never in his present life attain one

BTW stream entry doesn’t require jhanas as has been pointed out by both Ven Bodhi and Ven Analayo if i’m not mistaken

using one’s experiences in meditation as a proof of jhana attainability seems pretty arbitrary to me, because it means that if your experience were different you might have cast doubt on this teaching as well, despite the fact of it being taught by the Buddha

[quote=“tuvok, post:39, topic:5041”]
As for other supernormal attainments, so far I haven’t found use for them, so they might just be fairy tales to me.[/quote]

measuring veracity of a thing by its usefulness to me is a strange attitude to have

the label doesn’t change the essence

[quote=“tuvok, post:39, topic:5041”]
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.[/quote]

it was just an example of the virtue of faith shunned by ‘secular Buddhists’, as Siha trusted the Buddha’s word on rebirth, he didn’t say ‘well, i don’t know, how can i ascertain you speak the truth? since i cannot know for myself, i won’t take your word and will remain agnostic at best’ basically implicitly suggesting that the Buddha could have lied to his face about that or himself was deluded, which is also the implication of mistrust in the bits of Buddhavacana repeated in numerous suttas

suffering is a problem specifically because of rebirth. if the end of this life was it, then the suffering could be more or less bearable and we wouldn’t have to do much, just wait out until natural death or better yet commit suicide

does it seem reasonable to you that the Buddha would go to such lengths for the sake of something which could be remedied by ordinary death?

4 Likes
62

Thanks very much Dhammanando. That phrase sounds familiar and I was wondering if I had remembered properly regarding puna and two n’s.

I did a search for that phrase and indeed we find it, but only later texts. 40 occurrences in 22 books. The highest occurrence in the Theragāthā commentary. So I’ll have to amend what I say from now on. No occurrences in the first Four Nikāya. So for me that is strong enough support.

63

What about: Thag 2.32, Thag 3.13 & Sn 7.12?

1 Like