Coming into being. Are you?
Buddha (according to the canon) once pointed out, even if there would be no rebirth, you would have lead a blameless live for your own welfare and the welfare of others.
One, if he does not find a good access to a rebirth because he likes to take things very unpersonalized from the beginning, he cold thing on the next generations (it would meet him also if there is a rebirth) but many who denied rebirth also denied to think on next generations as well on past generation and just tend to form an atmosphere where they are able to live without gratitude and without thinking on others. It's pure selfishness and pure egocentric to cut down all responsibilities without cutting up the real root first. Delusion.
The next and past generation -thing would be also according to our old roots, no need to take it personal, but much need to see personal results.
There is a name for such a phenomena, it's called lost generation, a generation cut off of any tradition and ancient ways.
Regarding rebirth and anatta
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
(This brief essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu might also be of assistance):
No-self or Not-self?
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.
The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.
These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.
So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one's own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.
To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.
In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?
No-self or Not-self?
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.
The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.
These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.
So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one's own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.
To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.
In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
I understand your point. However, note that my doubt arises not just from mental speculation but from actual experience gained through practice.retrofuturist wrote:… the Buddha taught only that which was conducive to enlightenment. Pragmatism and practicality were high on the agenda, and you could summarise that mode of teaching with the question “Is this useful?”. The Buddha taught only that which was useful. In the Sabbasava Sutta, we see that he actively discouraged the kind of speculation inherent in your questions because they are not edifying and can only give rise to “asavas” (fermentations, outflows)…
There are relatively clear instructions on how to proceed to calm the body and mind, but these are not goals but only steps in the ladder towards nibbana.
Suppose you are able to transcend both body and mind so that they no longer become an obstacle, and you reach a state where only consciousness remain, but you are aware that even though this consciousness is much closer to the truth than what you have experienced before, you do not yet feel liberated. Little is said regarding what you are perceiving and how to proceed. What to do, when all you perceive is consciousness?
-
LonesomeYogurt
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
- Location: America
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
You don't simply perceive consciousness and nothing else - you obviously still encounter thoughts, sensations, sights, sounds, etc. You just don't cling to them, saying "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not who I am." That's the liberated mindset.Hugo wrote: I understand your point. However, note that my doubt arises not just from mental speculation but from actual experience gained through practice.
There are relatively clear instructions on how to proceed to calm the body and mind, but these are not goals but only steps in the ladder towards nibbana.
Suppose you are able to transcend both body and mind so that they no longer become an obstacle, and you reach a state where only consciousness remain, but you are aware that even though this consciousness is much closer to the truth than what you have experienced before, you do not yet feel liberated. Little is said regarding what you are perceiving and how to proceed. What to do, when all you perceive is consciousness?
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
-
suttametta
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
The Buddha doesn't explain how. He avoided metaphysical speculations. When you progress in jhana you can remember your past lives going back to countless prior births. It will appear in your memory. The simple explanation would be that the memory is not lost at death. This does not mean there is something substantial to it. The Buddha explained that what we regard as our self is only name and form accumulated from the five skandhas, which are like five piles of dust. People think "being Buddhist" requires figuring this part out. But the Buddha did not focus on this part, because remembering past lives is something non-buddhist yogis can achieve once they are able to enter the jhana of nothingness. Remembering past lives is not a prerequisite for attaining nibbana. As you know, nibbana is the point of the Buddha's teaching. The real proof of anatta comes from the meditations on suffering, impermanence and "not mine" within anapanasati and the satipatthana practice. Setting a metaphysical conundrum up in front of your practice will keep you distracted endlessly. I hope you come out of it with enough sense to set it aside and cultivate the fruit of the path, which is not that difficult to get once you apply the main practices.Hugo wrote:but I am puzzled by how there are some people who can remember former lives and maintain the sense of identity between rebirths.
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
Allow me to disagree. During meditation, there are times where you actually can perceive nothing else than consciousness. The sensations from the five senses is one of the first things that goes away in deep meditation. The thoughts go next, although it does require a considerable amount of commitment, both in time and in attitude.LonesomeYogurt wrote:You don't simply perceive consciousness and nothing else
Well, as a result of the intense practice, you naturally begin to realize that, even while immersed in daily activities. You can and should strenghten that sensation. But this does not necessarily mean you have attained liberation. You certainly become more aware about delusion, but between that and nibbana, there must be a considerable difference. I could not really say because I have not reached nibbana, but if it were that easy, how many fully liberated beings would there have been by now, from the time of the Buddha?LonesomeYogurt wrote: you obviously still encounter thoughts, sensations, sights, sounds, etc. You just don't cling to them, saying "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not who I am." That's the liberated mindset.
Now coming back to the thread, what puzzles me is that rebirth appears in the teachings to begin with, if supposedly it is not that important. I must be missing something either in the understanding of rebirth, or in the understanding of anatta (or both).
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
Hi Hugo,
Does this sutta resonate with your experience of deep meditation?
MN 140 Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mike
Does this sutta resonate with your experience of deep meditation?
MN 140 Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"There remains only consciousness: pure & bright. What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of pleasure that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure — ceases, is stilled.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. When sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain — ceases, is stilled.'
"Just as when, from the friction & conjunction of two fire sticks, heat is born and fire appears, and from the separation & disjunction of those very same fire sticks, the concomitant heat ceases, is stilled; in the same way, in dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain... One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling... ceases, is stilled.'
"One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of space and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated. One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated.' One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
Mike
-
LonesomeYogurt
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
- Location: America
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
I wasn't refering to Jhana. You're right that in deep meditation, one may reach a state of non-perception. However, in day-to-day life, an arahant would still see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and think.Hugo wrote:Allow me to disagree. During meditation, there are times where you actually can perceive nothing else than consciousness. The sensations from the five senses is one of the first things that goes away in deep meditation. The thoughts go next, although it does require a considerable amount of commitment, both in time and in attitude.
Nibbana is just the absence of greed, hatred, and delusion. It's not a magical transformation. If you mindfully understood on a deep, experiential level that all things are non-self, suffering, and impermanent, then you would be an arahant. Obviously neither of us are even close to that, but it's a mistake to say that there is any mystical property to Nibbana besides the cessation of passion.Well, as a result of the intense practice, you naturally begin to realize that, even while immersed in daily activities. You can and should strenghten that sensation. But this does not necessarily mean you have attained liberation. You certainly become more aware about delusion, but between that and nibbana, there must be a considerable difference. I could not really say because I have not reached nibbana, but if it were that easy, how many fully liberated beings would there have been by now, from the time of the Buddha?
Rebirth is important. You can be trying and be a Buddhist without believing in rebirth, but you have to make substantial changes to many aspects of the Tathāgata's teachings. It is a mistake to say that rebirth is not an important aspect of right view.Now coming back to the thread, what puzzles me is that rebirth appears in the teachings to begin with, if supposedly it is not that important. I must be missing something either in the understanding of rebirth, or in the understanding of anatta (or both).
I guess I'm having trouble with your objection to rebirth and/or anatta. Could you please state again exactly what is bothering you about it?
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
Now that I think about it, sometimes during meditation, I experienced something that could be considered pleasurable, I could describe it as waves of energy/consciousness which caused a pleasurable experience in my own consciousness, but after meditation when my awareness returned to the mind and body, I noticed there were pleasurable side effects there too. I did not feel agitation, though. I should study this sutta nevertheless, thanks.mikenz66 wrote:Does this sutta resonate with your experience of deep meditation?
MN 140 Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
Its very presence in the teachings puzzles me; I fail to see the consistency between rebirth and anatta (at least according to what I have studied so far).LonesomeYogurt wrote:I guess I'm having trouble with your objection to rebirth and/or anatta. Could you please state again exactly what is bothering you about it?
Beyond the human desire to categorize and form a satisfactory mental conception about everything, I am rather interested in the practical side, like knowing more about the nature of what you perceive when consciousness transcends body and mind, and how to transcend that state too, if necessary.
Edit:
What I have just said has a strong relationship to that sense of individuality I have talked about, of course. If my consciousness had disappeared or otherwise lost its sense of individuality, there would be not doubt in this regard.
Last edited by Hugo on Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
LonesomeYogurt
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
- Location: America
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
I think we've given the orthodox Buddhist position on it; the unending stream of arising and ceasing that characterizes the mind continues moment-to-moment, and that includes after death. As long as their are conditions that lead to the arising of results, they will arise. As for past life recollection, who is to say what the trained mind is capable of? It doesn't have any bearing on reaching enlightenment.Hugo wrote:Its very precense in the teachings puzzles me; I fail to see the consistency between rebirth and anatta (at least according to what I have studied so far).
Beyond the human desire to categorize and form a satisfactory mental conception about everything, I am rather interested in the practical side, like knowing more about the nature of what you perceive when consciousness transcends body and mind, and how to transcend that state too, if necessary.
As for your second question, I would recommend looking into Jhana states and deeper meditation.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
Unless your suggestion is solely regarding practice, could you point me to related suttas? There are many, not always [accurately] translated, and in any case I am not yet familiar with the canon so as to know where to find things. I am fluent in Spanish too, so any resource in that language would also be helpful.LonesomeYogurt wrote:As for your second question, I would recommend looking into Jhana states and deeper meditation.
-
LonesomeYogurt
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
- Location: America
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Hugo wrote: Unless your suggestion is solely regarding practice, could you point me to related suttas? There are many, not always [accurately] translated, and in any case I am not yet familiar with the canon so as to know where to find things. I am fluent in Spanish too, so any resource in that language would also be helpful.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These are probably the best two suttas. It would be great to read Beyond Mindfulness in Plain English by Gunaratana and perhaps Bliss, Mindfulness, and Beyond by Ajahn Brahm.
My Spanish is so poor I could probably not help you out translating anything, but I do know that:
http://www.bosquetheravada.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://btmar.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
are great resources my Spanish-speaking friends have used.
Good luck! I hope your meditation is successful.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
Re: Regarding rebirth and anatta
Thank you LonesomeYogurt and all who have replied, I intend to study the resources all of you have suggested.
Best regards, Hugo
Best regards, Hugo