His point is not about the nature of the self, but rather that we suffer as a result of these attachments to things we think of as "me" or "mine."
Thanissaro Bhikkhu sort of responds to this apparent contradiction, without actually answering the question at all.
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.He goes on to explain how the Buddha categorized questions to be answered, but does not address the contradiction that the Buddha himself apparently never addressed either.
Anyway, here is the Sutta (some more thought below).
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
SN 22.59, PTS: S iii 66, CDB i 901
translated from the Pali by ~Nanamoli Thera (c) 1993-2010
Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." - "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" - "Impermanent, venerable Sir." - "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" - "Painful, venerable Sir." - "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? - "No, venerable sir."
"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...
"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...
"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...
"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" - "Impermanent, venerable sir." - "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" - "Painful, venerable sir." - "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? - "No, venerable sir."
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'
"Any kind of feeling whatever...
"Any kind of perception whatever...
"Any kind of determination whatever...
"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'
"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.
"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.
Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more. PROVENANCE: (c)1981 Buddhist Publication Society. From "Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha (WH 17)", translated from the Pali by ~Nanamoli Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1981). Copyright (c) 1981 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. This Access to Insight edition is (c)1993-2010 John T. Bullitt.
TERMS OF USE: You may copy, reformat, reprint, republish, and redistribute this work in any medium whatsoever, provided that: (1) you only make such copies, etc. available "free of charge" and, in the case of reprinting, only in quantities of no more than 50 copies; (2) you clearly indicate that any derivatives of this work (including translations) are derived from this source document; and (3) you include the full text of this license in any copies or derivatives of this work. Otherwise, all rights reserved. For additional information about this license, see the FAQ.
HOW TO CITE THIS DOCUMENT (one suggested style): "Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic" (SN 22.59), translated from the Pali by ~Nanamoli Thera. Access to Insight, June 7, 2009, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html.The phrase in this text, "Birth is exhausted," can be argued to suggest multiple rebirths. But my sense is that he is talking about this birth, right here, right now.
This passage expresses my sense of "rebirth," which requires no self and no karma:
With respect to consciousness, in every temporal moment there is birth and in every moment there is death. The arising of one thought-moment means the passing away of another thought-moment and vice versa. In the course of one life-time there is momentary rebirth without the need for a soul.
However, it should not be understood that consciousness is chopped up in bits and joined together like a train or a chain. On the contrary, consciousness flows like a river receiving sensory input from various tributary streams and dispensing to the world the thoughts produced along its course. Consciousness has birth as its source and death for its mouth. The rapidity of the thought flow is such that is there no standard whereby it can be even approximately measured. However, some Theravada Buddhist commentators say that the time duration of one thought-moment is even less than the time occupied by a flash of lightning.
To the Buddha, consciousness should be envisioned as a juxtaposition of these fleeting mental states as opposed to a superposition of such mental states as many religions such as Hinduism appear to believe. No mental state once gone ever recurs nor is identical with what goes before. Thus, most humans, veiled by the web of their own illusions, mistake this apparent continuity to be something eternal and go to the extent of introducing an unchanging soul, the supposed doer and receptacle of all actions to this ever-changing consciousness.
Our ordinary perception of human consciousness is similar to the perception of a flash of lightning containing a succession of sparks that follow upon one another with such rapidity that the human retina cannot perceive them separately. Likewise, an ordinary person, without proper instruction, cannot perceive this rapid succession of separate mental states. Ordinary human consciousness is in being or alive only for one thought-moment at a time. This consciousness is always in the present, but is ever slipping into the irrevocable past. What we shall become is determined by this present thought-moment.
The author of this piece goes on to suggest that, "When life ceases, the kammic energy re-materializes itself in another form." Maybe; maybe not. I remain agnostic.
My current sense of kamma, if there is such a thing, is that it is confined to this life, this very present moment, and this one, and this one.
The definition of kamma offered by The Insight Meditation Society does nothing to change my position on this:
Karma/Kamma (Sanskrit/Pali) Action, deed; the law of cause and effect; intentional action, either wholesome or unwholesome that brings either pleasant or unpleasant results respectively.Many have suggested I am not a Buddhist because I do not firmly believe in rebirth and kamma, so this is my argument (with as little as I know) for why I believe as I do.
Tags: Buddhism, Sutta, reincarnation, karma, Kamma, Pali, Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, ~Nanamoli Thera, Translation, Siddhattha Gotama, anatta, self, not-self, Thanissaro Bhikkhu
