Would anyone care to explain to me how these three manage to link up? The textbook i have seems to make a brief attempt, but i still have a lot of questions... anyway, i learn best by arguing a point, so it'd be better to have some dynamic feedback.

Karma seems to imply a self, at least to me. I can see that it isn't necessary to Karma, but it also seems to lose all its force without a self to act upon.

Moreover, i just can't bring myself to put reincarnation and no-self together... especially when karma works across it. What the hell is it that's being re-incarnated? How is it karma if another (not-)self is a part of the cause of my happiness now, or worse, my unhappiness? If the self is only an illusion of substance brought about by a continous causal process, then what is it that links these processes of two different beings through life and death?

I'm probably just assuming that i'm a self implicitly somewhere without realising, but i can't figure where. Is this supposed to make sense?

anyway, any help would be appreciated.

All karma implies is cause and effect, not a self. Each infinitismal moment is an entirely new reality, determined by the previous moment (the cause), this is what karma is about.

The Buddha states that reincarnation occurs by the mind, which is spiritual (as opposed to material) in nature.

yeah, i think i mentioned that i can see how karma doesn't necessarily imply a self, i'm pretty sure it's just a connotation i've picked up after years of hearing the term's misuse. However, it's when it is combined with reincarnation that it throws me, as i shall explain. What is it that causally different beings through life and death? is it some substance, material or immaterial? could we base our conception of self-hood on this thing which stays common during reincarnation? If nothing else, could we base self-hood on the continous causal links through numerous incarnations?

I don't recall ever reading that reincarnation is supposed to occur by a spiritual mind, in fact i'd never heard of seperate spiritual (and non-material) substances in Bhuddism at all... so forgive me if i make a mistake here.

If some spiritual substance is what connects otherwise seperate beings through death and re-birth, wouldn't that be a permanency? I was under the impression that all things were impermanent, from what i could tell all of Bhuddism follows from that... Is spirituality exempt from this?

Anyway, many westerner's have attempted to base personal identity in some spiritual substance through history, and i'm well aware of the arguments against this. Is it that the Bhudda used the same arguments against the possibility of basing the self on the supposedly spiritual mind, which is (apparently from your comment) common through reincarnation?

This is how The Buddha explains it:

And there was an officer among the retinue of Simha
who had heard of the discourses of the Blessed One,
and there was some doubt left in his heart. [1]

This man came to the Blessed One and said:
"It is said, O Lord,
that the samana Gotama denies the existence of the soul.
Do they who say so speak the truth,
or do they bear false witness against the Blessed One?" [2]

And the Blessed One said:
"There is a way in which those who say so are speaking truly of me;
on the other hand, there is a way in which those who say so do not speak truly of me. [3]

"The Tathagata teaches that there is no self.
He who says that the soul is his self
and that the self is the thinker of our thoughts and the actor of our deeds,
teaches a wrong doctrine which leads to confusion and darkness. [4]

"On the other hand, the Tathagata teaches that there is a mind.
He who understands by soul mind,
and says that mind exists,
teaches the truth which leads to clearness and enlightenment." [5]

The officer said:
"Does, then, the Tathagata maintain that two things exist?
that which we perceive with our senses and that which is mental?" [6]

Said the Blessed One:
"Verily, I say unto thee, thy mind is spiritual,
but neither is the sense-perceived void of spirituality.
The bodhi is eternal and it dominates all existence
as the good law guiding all beings in their search for truth.
It changes brute nature into mind, and there is no being
that cannot be transformed into a vessel of truth." [7]

ok... I don't suppose you have access to an explanation of [4] in particular. I anticipated that in my previous post, but there doesn't seem to be any argument for why the soul cannot be the self in there. I know of arguments against it, but i would like to know the bhuddist argument in particular.

Also, arguments against the soul as a self arn't going to answer everything i've said. I've gathered now that not everything to a bhuddist is impermanent, which is fair enough as the not-self doctrine can work without it... but what about the common link, be it substance or even causal process, that joins beings through re-incarnation... is there an argument for why we cannot have a sense of identity in that?

Despite all this, i remain confused. What is the point of bhuddism? From what i've learnt (and i know only a very few bhuddist, even fewer who have studied it), the aim is to elimate suffering (as a rough translation) by teaching people to realise that there is no self, thus nothing which can suffer. Have i got this wrong? Does that even make sense... if suffering is brought about by the illusion of self-hood, what purpose does it serve to teach that there is no self to suffer, as there is actually no self to learn?

Is the purpose to attain Nirvana? What is it that attains Nirvana anyway? Is it the spirit? Or is it nothing, as there never was something to attain it in the first place?

I think i need a bigger book.

ok... I don't suppose you have access to an explanation of [4] in particular. I anticipated that in my previous post, but there doesn't seem to be any argument for why the soul cannot be the self in there. I know of arguments against it, but i would like to know the bhuddist argument in particular.

Also, arguments against the soul as a self arn't going to answer everything i've said. I've gathered now that not everything to a bhuddist is impermanent, which is fair enough as the not-self doctrine can work without it... but what about the common link, be it substance or even causal process, that joins beings through re-incarnation... is there an argument for why we cannot have a sense of identity in that?

Despite all this, i remain confused. What is the point of bhuddism? From what i've learnt (and i know only a very few bhuddist, even fewer who have studied it), the aim is to elimate suffering (as a rough translation) by teaching people to realise that there is no self, thus nothing which can suffer. Have i got this wrong? Does that even make sense... if suffering is brought about by the illusion of self-hood, what purpose does it serve to teach that there is no self to suffer, as there is actually no self to learn?

Is the purpose to attain Nirvana? What is it that attains Nirvana anyway? Is it the spirit? Or is it nothing, as there never was something to attain it in the first place?

I think i need a bigger book.
"Paradoxical though it may sound:
There is a path to walk on,
there is walking being done,
but there is no traveller.
There are deeds being done, but there is no doer.
There is a blowing of the air, but there is no wind that does the blowing.
The thought of self is an error
and all existences are hollow as the plantain tree
and as empty as twirling water bubbles."

I don't think The Buddha talks about any substance that joins beings in reincarnation. He says that people act through their impressions.

The purpose of Buddhism to end all suffering. The Buddha says doing good deeds will gain one good karma and give you higher and higher existences allowing you to achieve enlightenment. The Buddha says that everyone can achieve enlightenment.

Once you achieve enlightenment, there is no more suffering to any degree, you won't experience even one nanosecond or one instant of suffering, not in this world, nor in the next.

"A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it were real, so he escapes the suffering" - The Buddha

When you achieve enlightenment or nirvana you are perfectly self-awakened, pretend that all this is truly a dream, just like any other dream, unreal, see how all your worries, concerns, etc...magically disappear? When you're enlightened you fully realize the unreal nature of what we call reality, so how can there be any suffering?

but yeah...anyone who actually studies Buddhism will likely find lots of missing parts in it...

"A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it were real, so he escapes the suffering"

It is this that i attacked previously... one does not "escape the suffering", as there was never supposed to be suffering in the first place. It almost seems illogical to attempt to alleviate yourself from suffering by realising that there was never any suffering: if you were not suffering then you cannot overcome it; and there is no point in trying. What purpose does it serve to attempt to realise that there is no self or that reality is unreal... when such realisations also reveal that said realisation was useless?

"I don't think The Buddha talks about any substance that joins beings in reincarnation"

Ok... now i'm rightly confused. Is there substance to the bhudda? I'm guessing that he thinks that the material universe is unreal, but that there is continous spiritual substance... even if the 'spiritual' aspect of the universe were unreal, there is still the causal process of karma; and causality in general i'm pretty certain he held to be true. If it is not a substance of any kind, there is still a causal link through the various incarnations of the (not)self.

The purpose of Buddhism to end all suffering. The Buddha says doing good deeds will gain one good karma and give you higher and higher existences allowing you to achieve enlightenment. The Buddha says that everyone can achieve enlightenment

just in case it isn't entirely clear yet, this highlights my problems with Bhuddism. How can we end all suffering if no one is actually suffering in the first place? And if that is the case, what good is it to try? Everyone can achive enlightenment, but they do this by realising that being a 'one' is an illusion... so how can every 'one' achieve enlightenment, for friks sake?

It does indeed sound paradoxical. As i recall, the Bhudda encouraged people to judge for themselves if what he said was worth listening to... not just accept what he said at face value. Now... i would only say that if i had some darn good arguments to back it up, so did he?

I've never actually seen any... did he actually provide some? Because i also know a heck of a lot of people who say that simply to persuade.

It is this that i attacked previously... one does not "escape the suffering", as there was never supposed to be suffering in the first place. It almost seems illogical to attempt to alleviate yourself from suffering by realising that there was never any suffering: if you were not suffering then you cannot overcome it; and there is no point in trying. What purpose does it serve to attempt to realise that there is no self or that reality is unreal... when such realisations also reveal that said realisation was useless?

But there is suffering....
"Birth is suffering;
old age is suffering;
disease is suffering;
death is suffering;
sorrow and misery are suffering;
affliction and despair are suffering;
to be united with loathsome things is suffering;
the loss of that which we love
and the failure in attaining that which is longed for are suffering;
all these things, O brethren, are suffering"

Life in the material world is suffering, they say even those on the highest heavens still suffer, as well as those in the lowest hells.

How is enlightenment useless? You gain eternal bliss, which you previously didn't have. You're finally free, free from the bondage of the material world.

If you didn't achieve enlightenment, you would continously, eternally take birth and rebirth and experience suffering.


Ok... now i'm rightly confused. Is there substance to the bhudda? I'm guessing that he thinks that the material universe is unreal, but that there is continous spiritual substance... even if the 'spiritual' aspect of the universe were unreal, there is still the causal process of karma; and causality in general i'm pretty certain he held to be true. If it is not a substance of any kind, there is still a causal link through the various incarnations of the (not)self.

There is no causal process of karma, karma is just cause and effect. Like the Buddha says, although there is a blowing of the air, there is no wind that does the blowing. Why would there be something linking the incarnations? They are all in the mind, why is there a need for them to be linked in some way?


just in case it isn't entirely clear yet, this highlights my problems with Bhuddism. How can we end all suffering if no one is actually suffering in the first place? And if that is the case, what good is it to try? Everyone can achive enlightenment, but they do this by realising that being a 'one' is an illusion... so how can every 'one' achieve enlightenment, for friks sake?

What do you mean no one is actually suffering? They realize things are an illusion, in that they are not as they appear, so what? they still escape suffering and enter into eternal bliss.


It does indeed sound paradoxical. As i recall, the Bhudda encouraged people to judge for themselves if what he said was worth listening to... not just accept what he said at face value. Now... i would only say that if i had some darn good arguments to back it up, so did he?

I've never actually seen any... did he actually provide some? Because i also know a heck of a lot of people who say that simply to persuade.
The Buddha also said mental speculation was useless.

The Buddha also said mental speculation was useless.

yes, and that the only way to know the truth is through intense meditation. Sadly i can't bring myself to waste a life, or several, in meditation just because someone said so... which i also believe he mentioned somewhere. Western philosophy has always had problems with bhuddist mysticism and an epistemology so different from anything most will accept. I'm well aware that many still try, and everyone always comes up with this in the end: "i doesn't make sense, its not supposed to if you think about it". Screwy, if you ask me.

But there is suffering....
Yes, the first Noble truth.
The second Noble truth says the origin of suffering is in craving for existence.
The third Noble truth is that to remove suffering, you remove that craving.
The fourth, is the method of removing craving.

Forgive me if i've made too great a leap here, but isn't the eigthfold path ultimately meant to lead to the realisation of the non-self? So to remove suffering, you have to realise that there is no 'you'... how can there be suffering if there is no 'you' who is suffering. You remove craving by realising that everything you crave for is an illusion.

The aggregates suffer, but the aggregates are not a unified whole; 'You' do not suffer, just a collection of aggregates which you have the illusion of being 'you'. Similarly, 'you' do not achieve enlightenment, how can you if you do it through realising that there is no 'you'.

The four noble truths by themselves make a degree of sense; but when the not-self doctrine is added it creates problems. Without a self, the four noble truths no longer make sense. Have i made a mistake in adding the non-self doctrine in there?

How is enlightenment useless? You gain eternal bliss, which you previously didn't have. You're finally free, free from the bondage of the material world.

one more time... how do 'you' gain eternal bliss by realising there is no 'you'? without a self, what is it that is free from bondage? Aren't you just continuing the delusion?

If it were simply that they were to realise that reality is an illusion, then it makes perfect sense... many things would no longer seem worth worrying about if nothing were real. Indeed, if you were to realise that there is no you to suffer, then you would no longer suffer... that makes perfect sense.

But what sense does Nirvana make? Nirvana would just be another illusion, achieving enlightenment would be an illusion... especially if there is no self. What sense does it make to strive for it? "no one is actually suffering" not because there is no suffering, but because there is supposed to be no "one".

They are all in the mind, why is there a need for them to be linked in some way?
If they are not linked in any way, what sense does it make to say that one is reincarnated into another? If it is linked in the mind only (and if you don't mind, do you mean in the mind of the present incarnation only, or a common mind throughout all incarnations?), that is still a link with which one might base their identity.

yes, and that the only way to know the truth is through intense meditation. Sadly i can't bring myself to waste a life, or several, in meditation just because someone said so... which i also believe he mentioned somewhere. Western philosophy has always had problems with bhuddist mysticism and an epistemology so different from anything most will accept. I'm well aware that many still try, and everyone always comes up with this in the end: "i doesn't make sense, its not supposed to if you think about it". Screwy, if you ask me.

Well the Buddha says to only believe things if they agree with your own reasoning


Forgive me if i've made too great a leap here, but isn't the eigthfold path ultimately meant to lead to the realisation of the non-self? So to remove suffering, you have to realise that there is no 'you'... how can there be suffering if there is no 'you' who is suffering. You remove craving by realising that everything you crave for is an illusion.

The aggregates suffer, but the aggregates are not a unified whole; 'You' do not suffer, just a collection of aggregates which you have the illusion of being 'you'. Similarly, 'you' do not achieve enlightenment, how can you if you do it through realising that there is no 'you'.

The four noble truths by themselves make a degree of sense; but when the not-self doctrine is added it creates problems. Without a self, the four noble truths no longer make sense. Have i made a mistake in adding the non-self doctrine in there?

Well I would say its more of a realization of the truth, the essential, but yeah. To remove suffering you remove the cause of suffering, which is craving, it really has nothing to do with the self. There is no "you" or "I" rather nature is the only thing acting, not us. However, although there is no self, there is a mind.

Through ignorance you suffer, just as a dreaming person believing a nightmare is real suffers, but upon realizing that its just a dream, the suffering ceases to exist.

I think you misunderstand the no-self doctrine. It is that there is no atman, no soul, but there is a mind, there is a body. It depends how you define "you", are you your mind, your body, your soul or what? What is "you"? When you achieve enlightenment, your mind and body still change, as all material things are transient, but you are unconditioned, freed from all insecurities or impressions.


one more time... how do 'you' gain eternal bliss by realising there is no 'you'? without a self, what is it that is free from bondage? Aren't you just continuing the delusion?

What is "you"? Your body, your mind, your face, what? Is there really any you at all?


If it were simply that they were to realise that reality is an illusion, then it makes perfect sense... many things would no longer seem worth worrying about if nothing were real. Indeed, if you were to realise that there is no you to suffer, then you would no longer suffer... that makes perfect sense.

But what sense does Nirvana make? Nirvana would just be another illusion, achieving enlightenment would be an illusion... especially if there is no self. What sense does it make to strive for it? "no one is actually suffering" not because there is no suffering, but because there is supposed to be no "one".

All things are real pragmatically, just as things in a dream are real in that they exist in some type of way, however ultimately they aren't real, because they have no independant existence.

The point of striving for nirvana is to experience eternal bliss, thats the point, realization of the essential, freedom of ignorance, being awakened from this super-dream of reality.

One reason I prefer Hindu philosophy to Buddhist is because its more complete in my opinion, it is said in Hindu philosophy the only thing objectively existing in reality is brahman, the absolute bliss, it is unchanging, eternal, the only true reality. So this bliss is real, it is all that really exists, reality itself.


If they are not linked in any way, what sense does it make to say that one is reincarnated into another? If it is linked in the mind only (and if you don't mind, do you mean in the mind of the present incarnation only, or a common mind throughout all incarnations?), that is still a link with which one might base their identity.
Well you only have one mind, though you may have different physical brains which determine how well you can utilize your mind......no link though

indeed i must have misunderstood the not-self doctrine...

As i said, bhuddism makes good sense to me without it... everything you have said seems to follow. But it also seems to make the no-self redundant.

Do you have any good links or know of a good book which explains it better, as the ones i have just glossed over it, saying basically that to understand it would be "beyond the scope of the book" or "for further study".


Finally, i still can not make sense of their being no link between re-incarnations. How can one being be said to have re-incarnated into another if there is absolutely no form of link between them. Understand what i mean by link, i don't necessarily substance, but also a process. What is common between the to incarnations? or if there is nothing common, where is the continuity?

indeed i must have misunderstood the not-self doctrine...

As i said, bhuddism makes good sense to me without it... everything you have said seems to follow. ?

Karma and reincarnation with a self can be found in the teachings of Hinduism. (as vitalone says).

In buddhism there are 4 false views that should not be held; a view of a self, a being, a life and a soul. This is sometimnes translated as as 4 false conceptions. The meaning that should be taken here is that views and conceptions about these things should not be held as they will be inherently incorrect, rather than them being statements about what does and does not in reality exist.

No self is part of a pair, which is no self and no other. It goes along with other pairs such as being and non being, created and un created etc. To oversimplify a little, the purpose of buddhism is the ending of duality and merging with all as one - so when we hold views of these dualistic pairs having concrete existence we further entrenche ourselves in dualism and make liberation from the cycles of life and death (another dualism) more difficult.


Try reading the diamond sutra with a good commentry to help explain it. It is difficult reading, but will help you with this subject.

Try reading this excellent article (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
I think he reconciles it quite nicely.
He describes anatta as a strategy, rather than a belief, of the Buddha - and I think he supports his assertions well.

Expedient means (Upaya). Buddha did not make metaphysical or ontological statements, he just led being from suffering by expedient means.


“Upaya is a term in Mahayana Buddhism which is often translated as "means", though literally "expedient" would be more accurate, as "upaya" refers to something which goes or brings you up to something (i.e., a goal).
The term is often used with kaushalya ("cleverness"); upaya-kaushalya means roughly "skill in means". Upaya-kaushalya is a concept which emphasizes that practitioners may use their own specific methods or techniques in order to cease suffering and introduce others to the dharma. The implication is that even if a technique, view, etc., is not ultimately "true" in the highest sense, it may still be an expedient practice to perform or view or hold; i.e., it may bring the practitioner closer to true realization anyway.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya-kaushalya



Your article btw - very good.

All things are real pragmatically, just as things in a dream are real in that they exist in some type of way, however ultimately they aren't real, because they have no independant existence.
I like that!

According to buddha, life is suffering we must go through the Wheel of Samsara (born again and again) Enlightenment-->nirvana which escape the cycle of of rebirth, Karma = Law of Cause and Effect. Nonselfhood = Equanimity