If there is no self how can we reincarnate

[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.

[cappuccino]

Drywall gets along without a self too.

So why do you… value a self?

[davidbrainerd]

Drywall gets along without a self too.

So why do you… value a self?

Do you really think that ceasing to crave brings about non-existence in an absolute sense? That ceasing to crave phenominal existence could cause a spiritual entity to cease manifesting itself in the phenominal world, yet it nonetheless still exists in the spiritual realm, that makes sense. But that by ceasing to crave I absolutely cease to exist? Rocks don't crave, yet there they are, in phenominal existence. If we are just physical phenomena, there's no escape, just as rocks don't escape.

[L.N.]

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

Would you please provide a helpful citation for this understanding of the intellect as "nothing but a process aggregating the 5 into one picture"? I would like to read this for my own understanding. Thank you.

[davidbrainerd]

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

Would you please provide a helpful citation for this understanding of the intellect as "nothing but a process aggregating the 5 into one picture"? I would like to read this for my own understanding. Thank you.

Whichever sutta explains the six-sense base in full. I don't remember where it is.

[cappuccino]

Nirvana isn't annihilation… or this would be a suicidal goal.