What (Who) Is Reincarnating???

[Jeeprs]

I am  familiar with the Milinda-panna. But notice that the translator has interpolated the term 'no soul' throughout this passage. I don't agree with that interpolation.  The word 'soul' has no counterpart in Pali or Sanskrit. The Sanskrit equivalent would be 'atma' which simply means 'self'. I understand the Buddhist opposition to the 'atmavada'. But I still don't agree with this interpolation 'no soul'. This doesn't imply the opposite, either  - that there is a soul. Remember the Buddha's response to Vachagotta on the question of whether there is a self - neither 'yes' nor 'no'. The 'no soul' phrase is a definite 'no'.

I think the point of Nagasena's argument is to demonstrate the falsehood of being attached to one's sense of identity.  But this argument can also easily lead to a nihilist view.

On the other forum that I post to, the materialists also say there is no soul. Why? Because they say that human beings are a completely natural outcome of material interactions, formed by evolution and whatever physical processes have lead to living beings. At death, the elements disintegrate, and that is the end of it. There is no soul (which they think is just a superstition) and no life beyond this one. Accordingly, they think dharma is simply a social convention, and karma a myth to keep the masses in control. The atheist interpreters of Dharma, like Stephen Batchelor, dispute the notion of karma and rebirth for exactly this reason. They say it is interposed on the 'original teaching'. I say the opposite - that this materialist notion of 'no soul' is actually what is being interposed. It is not what the teaching means.

In the Buddhist tradition, it is understood that an individual life unfolds over many lifetimes (hence Dusko's original question). Remember the categorization of disciples in the Theravada tradition - never-returner, once returner, and stream-winner? This explicitly recognizes the process of re-birth, and the idea of karma playing itself out over lifetimes. What is the mechanism by which karma propagates through lifetimes? There is no easy answer to that question. In fact I don't think the Theravada tries to answer it, it simply assumes it. The Buddhist school that really worked out a detailed description of this whole process was the Yogācāra, who found it necessary to introduce concepts such as the ālaya-vijñāna in order to provide the basis for the process.

Philosophically, we can distinguish between a substance-view and a process-view. It is mistaken to think of 'soul' or 'atma'  - whether you accept it or not - as a substance or an entity. In the Buddhist view of rebirth, there is a process which plays itself out over many lifetimes. There is not a substance which undergoes the process, there is only the process.  We have become involved in this process, through craving and delusion, and therefore identify with the elements in the process, to the point that we think we are the process.  This is what Nagasena's argument is pointing to: he is trying to show us that we are identifying with all of these phenomena which are 'anatta', not-self.

Ultimately this argument leads to the doctrine of emptiness and all the Prajñāpāramitā teachings, such as the Diamond Sutra:

Buddha then asked, "What do you think, Subhuti, does one who has entered the stream which flows to Enlightenment, say 'I have entered the stream'?"

"No, Buddha", Subhuti replied. "A true disciple entering the stream would not think of themselves as a separate person that could be entering anything. Only that disciple who does not differentiate themselves from others, who has no regard for name, shape, sound, odor, taste, touch or for any quality can truly be called a disciple who has entered the stream."

Buddha continued, "Does a disciple who is subject to only one more rebirth say to himself, 'I am entitled to the honors and rewards of a Once-to-be-reborn.'?"

"No, Lord. 'Once-to-be-reborn' is only a name. There is no passing away, or coming into, existence. Only one who realizes this can really be called a disciple."

"Subhuti, does a venerable One who will never more be reborn as a mortal say to himself, 'I am entitled to the honor and rewards of a Non-returner.'?"

"No, Perfectly Enlightened One. A 'Non-returner' is merely a name. There is actually no one returning and no one not-returning."

"Tell me, Subhuti. Does a Buddha say to himself, 'I have obtained Perfect Enlightenment.'?"

"No, lord. There is no such thing as Perfect Enlightenment to obtain. If a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, 'I am enlightened' he would be admitting there is an individual person, a separate self and personality, and would therefore not be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha."

This is the 'great paradox' of the whole teaching: that awakening to the true identity is to go beyond all sense of myself, me, and mine, self and other, spirit and matter, and all of the other dualities that the 'phenomenal mind' clings to. From this viewpoint, there is indeed 'no soul' - but this is, if you like, viewed from above, from the transcendent realm, rather than from below, from the material realm. And within this material realm, if we say there is 'no soul', I still reckon we will end up falling back into materialism. We understand there is no soul by going beyond the realm of individuation, not by denying that it exists - and there is a world of difference between the two understandings.

[Andrew]

Nice post Jeeprs.

I've come full circle over this whole thing, I had come to the opinion that each existence was discreet and final,   and rebirth was a figurative illustration of the seemingly endless possibilities; when one got to a certain stage of being awake, the whole panarama opens up and all those experiences start flowing into a single point of consciousness, hence it seeming to the individual when they come back to everyday reality that indeed they have live all those lives.

Now i just think, yeah maybe we just lived all those lives.     

 Rebirth does help me let go of the idea that there is someone to blame, the idea that childhood shaped me. I shaped me, my continuum that is, my flame passed from life to life. I can forgive dad, mum, and others as I know they where seemlessly playing there part in my drama while i played my part in theirs in this cosmic dance of mystery.

I can even forgive God  Or more to the point ignore what everyone else seems to think on the subject and be at peace with whatever gets me to that 'I am That' moment. Action through inaction, Responsibility through playful disregard! irreverant disregard for the rules, entering the kingdom as a child, wide eyed, wild and innocent. Breaking whatever rule is in the way of 'that thou art'.

[Jeeprs]

I had a breakthrough when I was studying pre-history years ago. I was studying the origins of agriculture and animal husbandry.  I was thinking about who my distant ancestors were, on the plains of what is now Europe, for all those tens of thousands of years, or even longer. Countless generations of people were born, lived, gave birth, and died. There must have been great suffering involved, but also triumph, because if it weren't for them, I would not be here. (This also made me realize why the Chinese have reverence for ancestors.)

Anyway, one day I was thinking about these people, about who they were, and I suddenly thought  - they were all me. They were all earlier versions of this very person, with all their triumphs and tragedies and joys and woes. They all had a name, like I do, and their struggles and problems, and their loved ones, and each made their own contribution, and lived their life.

So when I came into existence, I was the inheritor of all that history - cultural, national, personal, genetic. I am just the current version of this unfolding process.

Perhaps this is just an allegorical way of picturing the idea of 'the cycle of birth and death'. It may not fit, exactly, but from the viewpoint of the modern west, it is a way of making sense of the what is otherwise a very exotic and rather scary idea. Even having that idea, made me feel a lot less alone in the world.

[Morning Dew]

Thanks Jeepers for the second post above.

Be well

[Vivek]

My understanding is that "atta" is the Pali equivalent of Sanskrit "atma". Note the verse "atta hi attano natho, atta hi attano gathi", which when translated to Sanskrit becomes "atma hi atmano natho, atma hi atmano gathih". Sanskrit "atma" means soul or self, depending on the context in which it is used. For example, note verse in Gita: "udharet atmanaa atmaanam"; here, "atma" is used as self - "One must raise oneself by oneself". But, note verse in Mandukya Upanishad: "ayam atma brahma", wherein, it indicates soul - "This soul is the Supreme Soul".

 I agree that "no soul" makes sense from the absolute stand-point. I think that Buddha spoke of atta/anatta depending on the context. "Atta hi attano natho" is meant as advice, so, interpretting atta as self or soul, is agreeable. So, when we come across atta in passages, it is mostly used in a relative stand-point. However, of the three marks, anatta comes the last. The practitioner starts his enquiry with anicca, whether or not whatever he comes across within the frame-work of the body is permanent. This is why Vipassana in Sayagyi U Ba Khin's tradition emphasizes on inquiring whether the body, sensations, mind and mental contents have any permanent basis or not, as the starting point. As the practitioner progresses with his understanding of anicca, he slowly moves on to the enquiry of the next mark, dukkha. Then, gradually, the practitioner moves on to the last mode of inquiry, whether there is any entity here as "I" or not. It does not help a novice practitioner to start thinking of anatta at the beginning itself. That will at the most, remain only as Chintan-maya Pannya which is helpful only to a certain extent. Anatta become Bhavana-maya Pannya only when the practitioner advances in Vipassana. So, I guess, it's OK to entertain the notion of self or soul in the beginning to intermediate stages, but not in the advanced stages of one's practice.

It is difficult to clearly establish what exactly Nagasena meant in the above illustration. But, going through how the conversation evolves with Milinda's enquiry, I am inclined to think that Nagasena is establishing "no self", rather than indicating not to have attachments to the sense of self etc. Note that Milinda's question was who Nagasena is, that is, he is dissecting what the entity called "Nagasena" is, where this entity is etc. And Nagasena's insightful answer establishes the fact that there is no entity as such, "Nagasena" is just a generally understood term for a process, a conglomeration of mind and matter. Anyway, one can interpret Nagasena's words either way. As Sankaracharya says, logic is like a double-headed sword. If you look for it, you can always find two ways to interpret the passages.

I don't think there is any reason to believe that just because Buddha was an exponent of "no soul", it makes him a nihilist. I would say, that is just the nihilists trying to read their meaning out of Buddha's words, rather than the Enlightened One supporting their views. Buddha has clearly established the purpose of human life, and Dhamma as the path to attain it. If Dhamma is interpretted as just social convention, then that is the error of those who interpret it that way. I think the root of this problem is over-intellectualizing and trying to create support for one's own beliefs. Anatta is not a concept to intellectualize, it is a fact to be experienced.       

[Jeeprs]

From a Zen blog I discovered:

The Buddha never once categorically denied the self, that is, he never denied what we are most primordially.  Where confusion enters the scene is when we try to approach self with various presuppositions.  In other words, we want to conceive self.  This conceiving of self is called âtma-mâna.  It is also a view of self (âtmadrsti) which is always the wrong view of the self insofar as the self is unviewable. 

More specifically when we conceive self it becomes something not-the-self (anâtman), or the same, it becomes an aggregate (skandha).  This aggregate then becomes attachment for us, which is suffering, since the five skandhas (pañcaskandha) are suffering (D. ii. 305), according to the Buddha.

Source

It is easy to spot the Buddhists who stumble in the dark.  They are the ones who call Buddhism a non-substance ontology or non-substantialist, these particular terms referring to the fact that the Buddha supposedly denied the atman or self, or for that matter, ultimate reality.

When Buddhists not only stumble in the dark but fall is when they attempt to lay out the Buddha’s teaching minus an absolute or transcendent self, realized through gnosis.  What they present, instead, soon begins to smell of nihilism which is the denial of transcendent reality.  This opens the door to the belief that life has no meaning.  Nihilism, I hasten to add, makes gnosis or jñâna also meaningless and not worth achieving.

Judging from the Buddhist canon, itself, the evidence is just not there that the Buddha’s awakening did not behold the absolute if by absolute we mean ultimate reality as opposed to finite, transient existence.  What he consistently taught from his gnosis, as the awakened one, is that the impermanent and suffering psychophysical body (the pañcaskandha) is not our true self.  By comparison, Buddhist who stumble in the dark; who pose a strict non-substance/absolute doctrine would teach that all is a grand illusion or mâyâ—and leave it at that.  But no such teaching exists in the canon.  Those who stumble teaching such nonsense, we may conclude, prefer darkness to the light. 

Source

When we come across such phrases as “form is not-self (anatta)” or “feeling is not-self” this is no more a denial of self than saying the engine of the automobile is not a driver.  We understand the driver to be totally different than the automobile and its various parts.  By saying form is not-self, the Buddha is simply saying the true dharma or dhamma, i.e., the self, is not one of the Five Aggregates which, incidentally, belong to Mara the Evil One.

...a lot of Buddhists have been fed inaccurate information about the role of self in Buddhism, including negation (the via negativa).  Given that Buddhism uses negation a great deal, such as the negation of the Five Aggregates which are not my self—and can never be my self, Buddhism also has a positive side which points to the absolute.  Negation works, in fact, as a surefire method by which to approach the supreme positive, namely, the absolute.

source

I am not quoting this writer because he is an authority, but only because I agree with him.

[Masauwu]

But can this riddle be solved with a philosophical approach? I can live with the fact that i don`t know which is the answer until i see it myself clearly. Does it help me to form an opinion or adopt a view based on theory? I can`t tell whether it helps or it hurts, but i will not trust an answer until i perceive it directly.

[Andrew]

I think too much is made of the word 'ultimate'.

By definition no limited being will ever or ever has experienced something 'ultimate' in the strictest sense.(The  scale of universe thread is a great place to start contemplating that one!) That would be like saying if we make a triangle extremely big it will become a square! Or if I try really hard I can fit 2 litres of water in a 500ml cup. Absurd. None the less people go on believing they are experiencing ultimate truths every day.

This in itself is another definition of suffering by the way, that I can and do experience ultimate things.  I'm quite thankful that the self I perceive myself to be is not permanent, god help me if it was. I'm also thankful my experience isn't the yard stick of what is 'ultimate'. We would be completely f*cked if that were so- let me tell you!

The nature of what is beyond our experience will always be the subject of philosophy, but I think it is important to know what our view (philosophy) is. I completely agree that nothing gets 'sorted out' with philosophy, but it is without a doubt another form of observation that must be apprehended.

Denying philosophy itself does not free us from it! neither does asserting philosophical points make them anymore true. the simple fact is we are always 'philosophying' whether we like it or not. Sort of like breathing, it just keeps going whether we are paying attention or not!

I'm inclined to believe (philosophy alert) that Right View comes at the beginning of the list as without having a direction to head in, we will indeed 'find' whatever it is we hold to be true. So angels will appear to some and aliens to others depending on those views being held. If we deny the power of these initial thought seeds ( like holding the thought: There absolutely is no ultimate self) that will grow a tree of nihilism without a doubt. There is a knifes edge to walk here so we should tread lightly! I know that a small grin comes to my face when i think of letting go of this limited self. Either I am already a complete nihilist, or that glimmer of joy is a reflection of something worth letting go for! Ajahn brahm said something interesting the other day, "We let some things go, but we don't throw them away" he was talking about family and friends. I think that we need this feeling for our sense of self as well; any harshness and dogmatic 'there is no self' is sure to walk right over the subtle truth in between.

 




 

[Jeeprs]

Yes, all good points. But I think there is a very common nihilist misinterpretation of 'anatta'. The distinction can be expressed very easily: 'nothing is self' does not equal 'there is no self (or that 'Buddhism teaches there is no soul'  .)  One book in particular recommended by one of the teachers at my course was Early Buddhism: The I of the Beholder by Sue Hamilton Blyth.  Getting it out shortly.

[Masauwu]

A brief addition to my previous post (prompted while watching one of Adyashanti`s videos): there is a subtle power in accepting i don`t know something. The mind tries to make up its mind about a subject you have under scrutiny. You opened a file cabinet for this subject and your zealous servant - the mind - cannot leave this empty; it must put something in it. That is the default operating system settting.

But you are no longer an inexperienced user of that operating system. You peaked inside the .ini and .cfg files and can edit them now. You can choose to accept that the file cabinet can be empty until something worthy to put in it shows up. Or grow flowers or tomatoes in it in the meantime.

[Andrew]

Cool post Masauwu, very insightful. The mind is a file system server, but lacks a competent user! 

[Jeeprs]

Wish there was an 'I agree' button, but there isn't, so: I agree.