If there is no self how can we reincarnate

[tiltbillings]

Craving to get rid of craving? interesting thought!

There is no craving to get rid of craving.

There is insight meditation to observe the emergence of craving and not abiding to the craving.

So just passively wait for craving and say 'no' to it when it magically arises out of nowhere. That seems like a bandaid, a quick fix, a stop gap, a wholly impermanent solution that could not possibly achieve full release or liberation. Whereas training the self to stop craving, taming the self (Dh 323), sounds like a permanent solution leading to full release.

Say my sink was leaking, and I sat there in sink leaking meditation to observe the emergence of leaking water, and not abide it (i.e. stick a bowl under it each time it looks like a leak is arising). Wouldn't it be better to fix it at the root cause?

And this is how you understand vipassana/insight meditation to be?

[davidbrainerd]

And this is how you understand vipassana/insight meditation to be?

No.

[badscooter]

I believe in the "not self" teaching... For if there is "no self", then what lets go of stress? Who lets go of the idea of "self"? Who/what becomes enlightened? Something, a "self", must be able to drop the identity of self! If not, then who or what is letting go of the idea of "self"?

If you look at the teachings as "not self", instead of "no self", then rebirth tends to make more sense..

[Saoshun]

Compare rebirth to a seed and the tree. Tree is not a seed and seed is not a tree. Seed needs to have a ground to grow if have no ground there is no way it's can grow and other elements so it's not only the "I" or no "I" which can be affected by birth of death but others factors must be eliminated too so to speak.

So how we reincarnate? Just by dropping our seeds on the ground from lifetime to lifetime.

[L.N.]

So just passively wait for craving and say 'no' to it when it magically arises out of nowhere.

Your method of rephrasing/framing the proposition is unfortunate. I don't believe anybody is talking about magical occurrences. But there is much to be said for recognizing that which presents itself at the mind door (just as that which presents itself at any other sense door), even if we perhaps do not know the source (similar to a loud, unidentifiable noise in the distance). Why, in your view, should one not maintain awareness with equanimity with regard to that which presents itself at the mind door?

That seems like a bandaid, a quick fix, a stop gap, a wholly impermanent solution that could not possibly achieve full release or liberation.

The way you have framed it, yes. But then, I believe you have put forward what some refer to as a "straw man" position.

Whereas training the self to stop craving, taming the self (Dh 323), sounds like a permanent solution leading to full release.

Apologies, are you referring to the Dhammapada passage? ("... one who is self-tamed goes by his own tamed and well-controlled mind.") If so, I don't think you'll get there by gritting your teeth and forcing yourself not to crave. (And I realize that I may now be the one oversimplifying your position.)

Say my sink was leaking, and I sat there in sink leaking meditation to observe the emergence of leaking water, and not abide it (i.e. stick a bowl under it each time it looks like a leak is arising). Wouldn't it be better to fix it at the root cause?

Perhaps you would like to rephrase the question? As stated, I do not see how this question will lead to any helpful discussion. Metta

[spacenick]

First, remember that the Buddha never taught "no self" but "NOT-self". Very important. Read more here and here

Covered by the Buddha in MN 109 and other places which I do not remember right now (remember that all these questions have all been asked at the time of the Buddha and were answered by Gotama himself - that is where sutta study is helpful & important).

Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?"

Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving — might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Mostly by putting this kind of questions under the category of "questions that do not help in the process of bringing an end to pain". Brush it aside, when you become an arahant, you won't ask this question anymore.

[davidbrainerd]

First, remember that the Buddha never taught "no self" but "NOT-self". Very important. Read more here and here

Covered by the Buddha in MN 109 and other places which I do not remember right now (remember that all these questions have all been asked at the time of the Buddha and were answered by Gotama himself - that is where sutta study is helpful & important).

Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?"

Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving — might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Of course, the BIG problem, the big deception by which the majority of the West has been deceived on what Buddha taught is the word "consciousness."

Buddha does NOT speak of "consciousness." He speaks of "sensory consciousness."

For some reason, many people when reading a sutta like the above, cannot keep in mind that so-called "consciousness" to Buddha is eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc. So they misinterpret it as "consciousness" in the sense of the sentient principle or self-awareness rather than the operation of the 5 senses by the brain. Then they reason: "Buddha just said that the sentient principle or self-awareness is not self; therefore there is nothing that could be self." But he is only talking about consciousness of the body's senses.

Mostly by putting this kind of questions under the category of "questions that do not help in the process of bringing an end to pain". Brush it aside, when you become an arahant, you won't ask this question anymore.

An arhant will know he exists. He would never be like an unsure person who has to ask somone else for verification of his own existence: "Am I real? Is there a self?" Part of the realization of an arhant is "cogito ergo sum."

[spacenick]

Of course, the BIG problem, the big deception by which the majority of the West has been deceived on what Buddha taught is the word "consciousness."

Buddha does NOT speak of "consciousness." He speaks of "sensory consciousness."

Yes, there's the clear distinction between sensory consciousness (but that does include mind and thoughts, so I'd be careful to not just talk about the "5 senses", the important fact here is that that class of consciousness is taken as being self[^1]; so I like the use of "individualized consciousness" to refer to the sensory-consciousnesses) and vinnanam anidassam, the consciousness of an arahant (a synonym of Nibbana).

If you don't pay attention you miss it, but it's everywhere in the suttas and you'll hear it from (supposedly arahants [^2]) Thai Ajahns such as Ajahn Dtun (look up his videos on YouTube)

[^1]: And we end up in the trap of the "Bodhi Mind", where consciousness has been subtly reified to a "self", a namable-form ("pure consciousness", "Bodhi Mind", "The Void"); a conjuction of name-&-form and consciousness (and thus, you are still in Samsara)
[^2]: It takes the mind of an arahant to know another, hence my "supposedly" - I can't confirm that fact. I would tend to agree, though.

[badscooter]

First, remember that the Buddha never taught "no self" but "NOT-self". Very important. Read more here and here

Covered by the Buddha in MN 109 and other places which I do not remember right now (remember that all these questions have all been asked at the time of the Buddha and were answered by Gotama himself - that is where sutta study is helpful & important).

Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?"

Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving — might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Mostly by putting this kind of questions under the category of "questions that do not help in the process of bringing an end to pain". Brush it aside, when you become an arahant, you won't ask this question anymore.

[L.N.]

So they misinterpret it as "consciousness" in the sense of the sentient principle or self-awareness rather than the operation of the 5 senses by the brain. Then they reason: "Buddha just said that the sentient principle or self-awareness is not self; therefore there is nothing that could be self." But he is only talking about consciousness of the body's senses.

Who are "they"? With regard to your discussion of the Buddha's teaching of "the operation of the 5 senses by the brain," would you please provide a helpful citation? I am more familiar with the teachings regarding the six sense doors. Thank you.

[cappuccino]

The sun doesn't have a self, yet it seems to function (for billions of years regardless).

We're a natural phenomenon as well…

[davidbrainerd]

So they misinterpret it as "consciousness" in the sense of the sentient principle or self-awareness rather than the operation of the 5 senses by the brain. Then they reason: "Buddha just said that the sentient principle or self-awareness is not self; therefore there is nothing that could be self." But he is only talking about consciousness of the body's senses.

Who are "they"? With regard to your discussion of the Buddha's teaching of "the operation of the 5 senses by the brain," would you please provide a helpful citation? I am more familiar with the teachings regarding the six sense doors. Thank you.

What I mean is the 6th sense is nothing but a process aggregating the 5 into one picture.

[davidbrainerd]

The sun doesn't have a self, yet it seems to function (for billions of years regardless).

We're a natural phenomenon as well…

So far as we know, the sun doesn't think. Rocks seem to get along fine without a self too. But the reason is the same.

[cappuccino]

Rocks seem to get along fine without a self too.

Rocks do get along fine without a self.

[davidbrainerd]

Rocks seem to get along fine without a self too.

Rocks do get along fine without a self.

Drywall gets along without a self too.