Anatta & Rebirth : An Idea

[Uilium]

People always ask what goes to the next life if there is no-self. Why is it that we need to seperate samsara(your mental contiunum or each persons ongoing experience) because the process of death & birth happens? T

[makarasilapin]

People always ask what goes to the next life if there is no-self. Why is it that we need to seperate samsara(your mental contiunum or each persons ongoing experience) because the process of death & birth happens? T

i'm not sure what it is you're asking. can you reformulate your question?

careful not to mistake "no-self" with "not-self". the Buddha never taught that there is no self, he taught that nothing is yours and that fabrications of self are useful until the final letting go.

[Alex123]

People always ask what goes to the next life if there is no-self. Why is it that we need to seperate samsara(your mental contiunum or each persons ongoing experience) because the process of death & birth happens? T

i'm not sure what it is you're asking. can you reformulate your question?

careful not to mistake "no-self" with "not-self". the Buddha never taught that there is no self, he taught that nothing is yours and that fabrications of self are useful until the final letting go.

You are right about "no/not" distinction. Furthermore, it is important to be totally clear what Atman (as 5th Century BC Indians understood it) means.

The way Atman is defined is different from even wrong Christian idea of a soul, nothing to say about empiric and transitory "self".
I don't think that anyone in western world believes in some sort of a Self that never changes, is totally happy and has cartoonish type of control "let me grow wings and fly to pluto" [after which it occurs].

I think that we need to be careful and find out exactly what Atta means as 5th Century BC Indian metaphysicians understood it.

[polarbuddha101]

People always ask what goes to the next life if there is no-self. Why is it that we need to seperate samsara(your mental contiunum or each persons ongoing experience) because the process of death & birth happens? T

i'm not sure what it is you're asking. can you reformulate your question?

careful not to mistake "no-self" with "not-self". the Buddha never taught that there is no self, he taught that nothing is yours and that fabrications of self are useful until the final letting go.

You are right about "no/not" distinction. Furthermore, it is important to be totally clear what Atman (as 5th Century BC Indians understood it) means.

The way Atman is defined is different from even wrong Christian idea of a soul, nothing to say about empiric and transitory "self".
I don't think that anyone in western world believes in some sort of a Self that never changes, is totally happy and has cartoonish type of control "let me grow wings and fly to pluto" [after which it occurs].

I think that we need to be careful and find out exactly what Atta means as 5th Century BC Indian metaphysicians understood it.

The Buddha actually rather explicitly said that all doctrines of self cause dukkha.

"Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.

Whether made of form or formless, finite or infinite, composed of the 5 khandas, encompassing them, being apart from them, being mortal or immortal all self-view must be abandoned; for "I am" is an imagining, a construing, a cancer, an arrow, without abandoning the conceit "I am" one cannot put an end to suffering and stress, pain, lamentation, grief and despair, birth, aging, illness, and death.

[Alex123]

The Buddha actually rather explicitly said that all doctrines of self cause dukkha.

Buddha NEVER said anything about "self" in English language. Self is English word, and I don't think that it is totally correct translation of pali "atta".

The kind of atman that is rejected is not even the Christian idea of a soul, or secular idea of individual.

[Uilium]

People always ask what goes to the next life if there is no-self. Why is it that we need to seperate samsara(your mental contiunum or each persons ongoing experience) because the process of death & birth happens? T

i'm not sure what it is you're asking. can you reformulate your question?

careful not to mistake "no-self" with "not-self". the Buddha never taught that there is no self, he taught that nothing is yours and that fabrications of self are useful until the final letting go.

Things you don't let go of tend to be useful...

[Benjamin]

The Buddha actually rather explicitly said that all doctrines of self cause dukkha.

Buddha NEVER said anything about "self" in English language. Self is English word, and I don't think that it is totally correct translation of pali "atta".

The kind of atman that is rejected is not even the Christian idea of a soul, or secular idea of individual.

Could you elaborate a bit? What does atman mean to you?

[polarbuddha101]

The Buddha actually rather explicitly said that all doctrines of self cause dukkha.

Buddha NEVER said anything about "self" in English language. Self is English word, and I don't think that it is totally correct translation of pali "atta".

The kind of atman that is rejected is not even the Christian idea of a soul, or secular idea of individual.

Actually, self is a rather good translation. Think about it, in the Buddha's time some said self (atta) is comprised of the 4 great elements and on the break up of the body the elements scatter and consciousness ceases. This is identical to saying "I am an amalgamation of chemical processes that will disperse/decompose upon death." I've read enough suttas to know that self is a great translation given all the contexts in which that word appears, not to mention the fact that the Buddha says "I am" is an imagining implying that once one identifies as something or someone they have taken up what in english can only be called a doctrine of self or self-conceit. I mean it's rather obvious, I know you read the suttas, so what's your beef? It seems that you just want your vision of a transient temporary psychophysical doctrine of self to escape that which the Buddha critiqued but it can't because all doctrines of self, soul, and what else have you is a product of tanha and will only result in further dukkha according to the teaching of the Buddha. Most people today still identify with their minds and the Tathagata taught that mind or consciousness is not self, the body is not self, fabrications, perceptions, feelings are not self. Self-identity as a philosophical pursuit is worthless from the standpoint of the dhamma, anything taken up to be a "you" is just another fabrication. Memories are not self, personality is not self but rather another fabrication and reification of a concept, i.e. tendencies manifesting over time.

But if you think that atta is too narrow of a term to be synonymous with self then I would love to hear what your reasons are for thinking that. But notice that the term atta is often used in the pali for terms such as oneself, yourself, myself as just an ordinary pronoun so I don't think you have much ground to stand on. If you still think that atta is qualitatively different then I would really like to hear why you think that though, so please do respond.

[SarathW]

Anatta is the most important teaching of Buddha and not easy to understand.
Who understands this correctly will become an Ariya.
Please read the attached .
Metta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html