Not Self and Reincarnation in Buddhism

[Paulclem]

Hi Dizzy. First I'd like to establish that Not self is a central tenet in Buddhism.

http://www.snowlionpub.com/search.php?isbn=NOSEN2

Above is a book in the Tibetan tradition.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/whatist...dhasnoself.htm

In the link above, if you scroll down, you will find a paragraph about non self.

http://www.beingwithoutself.org/talk...enBuddhism.pdf

The above link is about no-self in Zen.

So these are from just random searches, rather than references to books which are more difficult to verify. No-self is an accepted part of Buddhism, though you will find debate and discussion about the subject.

[Paulclem]

Well we all know the "self" in its present form does exist because we are evidence of it, so I have no clue why that statement was made except... possibly... they mean just that "in its present form", which is just as my personal spiritual awareness leads me to believe, that WE are NOT this present "mortal self or current soul" we are in fact an Old Soul or an Immortal Soul who returns in reincarnation as per the rest of this website states. What other reason can there be for it, because the website makes reference to Rebirth and Karma often in connection with reincarnation into new lives to cleanse bad karma? It could mean that they are classifying the mortal "self" and "soul" as the same thing.

In terms of Buddhism, you've hit the nail on the head with this post. The usual view of self is that we have one - clearly. I'm me, you are you, we're all individuals. This idea has been reinforced a lot with the cult of the personality, and individualism in the west.

The teachings say that what we think of self is actually a collection of mental and physical phenomena, which is not a complete whole - as in a soul, but is a collection of aggregates that the mind then sees as a complete being.

I'm not asking you to believe this, as it is not the way to go about it. That's what the meditations are for. To examine questions like this as they pertain to the self. The Buddha's instructions refered to difficult concepts like this and invited the practitioner to check it out for themselves.

It seems counter intuitive at first, especially as we are so infused with ideas of self and individuality, that we find it difficult to let go.

It does make sense though. Why don't we resemble more fully our youger selves? Why do people with alzheimers seem to lose their personality if that is enscoced in their self or soul - an immortal element of the body?

[dizzydoll]

As I see on one of the links you provide, they say: "As I've been arguing for the past few blog posts, Buddhists of all backgrounds and ethnicities seem to be viewed through many layers of stereotyping that obscures who we are." Why is this so if the Buddhists are getting their teaching across clearly? What would be the point of not having clear cut guidelines for everyone to understand?

I dont know it just seems as tho they add all these guidelines and steps to appear mystical perhaps. I cannot see how old the Theravada Buddhism practice is, but I note Mahayana Buddhism is 2000 years old. This means they have taken their ideals from other older faiths and then added their twist to it. For this reason I feel more comfortable with following and adopting the older philosophies.

Probably the most important thing which stands out is Buddhists claim we must rid ourselves of the ego. That is impossible, one can only "tame" the ego they cannot get rid of it. I believe its delusional to even attempt to stamp out the ego. After all, the ego is needed for self-improvement and personal growth.

Furthermore, I enjoy reading Buddhist stories of guidance until it comes to the suffering bit... at that point I stop reading because my views are entirely different. To my mind when one tries to control "anything" it will evade you. I believe thats one of societies problems, constant attempting to control everything.

Thanks Paul for posting this thread, others might find it more valuable than I, but you havent stated how Buddhism fits into reincarnation tho? Can you oblige. If Buddhists believe we dont have soul what is the purpose of reincarnation? Or do they believe we are reincarnated as an entirely different person the next time round? I am more confused now about Buddhism than before.

Personally I think the key to life is to just keep it as simple as possible, forget all the hype and do your best. Learn compassion and unconditional love. Offer support where you can. Live in the present now and believe in yourself and your dreams. I believe good karma is repaid to us in this life and future lives and the same applies to bad karma. I believe we choose our lessons before we are born into this body and we are judged by how we deal with life's challenges rather than being judged by the challenge itself. By showing appreciation and gratitude will bring more to be grateful for.

I believe we are an old soul who is using this mortal body to develop further on a spiritual level with the purpose to get closer to pure unconditional love -- source, were we are all connected in oneness.

Become aware of cause and effect and accept how it affects each of us. This means situations like bearing a disabled child might be for the purpose of teaching us and society something rather than only viewing the child as a hopeless burden to society, for example. In other words all dire conditions bestowed upon us should be viewed as more than just personal grievances.

Buddhism has too many conditions connected to its philosophy and it seems full of ambiguity, as they themselves state in one of the links you provided: "As I've been arguing for the past few blog posts, Buddhists of all backgrounds and ethnicities seem to be viewed through many layers of stereotyping that obscures who we are." If the Buddhists are not clear in their own teaching what value can we learn from it? And surely if we are to follow Gods guidance He would be a fool to make it difficult for us to understand it.

[dizzydoll]

I see you posted your first comment to the OP at roughly the same time as I did. Give me time to read and respond on it, if I feel it necessary... but you might find my views are not compatible to Buddhism as stated in my post above.

Why do people with alzheimers seem to lose their personality if that is ensconced in their self or soul - an immortal element of the body?

People with Alzheimer's lose their Soul, they lose their personality self but they cannot lose their Old Soul which is immortal. The shell that holds them in this life has no bearing on their immortal being or old soul.

We choose challenges like this in advance [before we are born] because there is learning/teaching to come out of it. Others will learn from caring for an individual with alzheimers, and this could be the reason why the patient chose this condition. We should be careful before we judge any condition because all have their purposes. One day we might come back blind, I can see much learning coming from that even tho I dont like the thought as I sit here and type to you.

This is the only way life makes sense to me, otherwise what would be the purpose of any suffering. We learn and teach each other and in connectivity we all grow from it. If we do injustice to others it might take many lives to repay that karma. There is always a reason why the suffering is there to start with even tho it may seem cruel to us on a practical level.

If you think of someone who is incorrectly convicted of a crime and they go to jail for life. That seems grossly unfair. But stop and go through it your mind and wonder why this happened. We can never know for sure, but perhaps they will teach existing convicts something of valuable, perhaps it will teach their family members lessons too. It could even mean that he never paid for his crime in a previous life. There could be any number of reasons why this could happen but its not up to us to speculate, cos if we do, invariably we would be wrong.

You might find this interesting Paul:

No Self
The state of no self is actually a pure manifestation of inner spacious reality, Being in its openness, we experience it as empty space, immaculate and pure, light and clean, empty of everything structured by the mind. However the self reacts to the sense of no self in many ways -- as a loss, as a deficiency, and so on, plus the associations, memories, and feelings that go with these interpretations. All this psychic content pervades the inner spaciousness so that we lose sight of its lightness, purity, immaculateness, and freedom. Instead, we feel it as deficient emptiness, dull and flat, heavy and dark. Only when we allow this emptiness to be, without judgment or rejection, without reaction or opinion, does it shed its obscurations and reveal its inherent truth: the state of no self, the freedom and openness of our Being. (The Point of Existence, pg 337)

There is consciousness and a kind of emptiness, a void that has no sense of self and no need for a sense of self. The step after that is the loss of consciousness of no-self, and when that consciousness is gone, there is no consciousness of self, or no-self and no knowing that there is no consciousness of self or no-self. This is the absence of mind, consciousness, and sensation. When that happens, it is then possible to be truly spontaneous because there is no self there to reflect on.

If you reflect on yourself in this state, the only thing that happens is that you realize your head is turned around and that you are looking outside. There is nothing else to look into; you can only look outward. The main barrier to all these transitions is the belief that you are the person that is connected to the body. You’re taking what we call the shell (because it functions as a defensive shell) to be you. Identifying with the shell brings the terror that you are going to lose the sense of being a person. But what you actually are is not a person; you are a window to the universe. (Diamond Heart Book 4, pg 131)

[Paulclem]

I dont know it just seems as tho they add all these guidelines and steps to appear mystical perhaps. I cannot see how old the Theravada Buddhism practice is, but I note Mahayana Buddhism is 2000 years old. This means they have taken their ideals from other older faiths and then added their twist to it. For this reason I feel more comfortable with following and adopting the older philosophies.

2554 years ago for Therevada Buddhism. All the schools are consistent with the teachings, but there are debates about aspects of the teachings such as no self.

Hinduism was the Indian religion around the Buddha's time. They had a meditation tradition, but had also developed the caste system through the use of rituals and animal sacrifice. This is one of the things the |Buddha rejected, along with the idea of a permanent self or soul.

I feel more comfortable with following and adopting the older philosophies.

You have to go with what you feel drawn to.

And probably the most important thing which stands out is that they claim we must rid ourselves of the ego. That is impossible, one can only "tame" the ego they cannot get rid of it. I believe its delusional to even attempt to stamp out the ego. The ego is connected to self-improvement.


It goes very nicely along with the idea that there is no self. Taming the ego is mentioned in a series of pictures about taming an elephant. It's not about giving up drive and endeavour, but the Buddhist focus is about getting rid of negative egoistic states of mind - such as greed and anger, and replacing them with positive states of mind such as compassion and giving. The idea that the self is not a solid entity or soul, but that it is dependant on other factors means that a person can take control of their mind and make the positive changes they want.

Furthermore, I enjoy reading Buddhist stories of guidance until it comes to the suffering bit... at that point I stop reading because my views are entirely different. To my mind when one tries to control "anything" it will evade you. I believe thats one of societies problems, constant attempting to control everything.

I think you've got something else in mind here. The Buddhist view is that we are all in a state of suffering whether we are rich, poor, ill or whatever. The nicest, longest lived, happiest, richest person will at some point lose it all. hat's the deep suffering that we all have to go through. The Buddha's path is an attempt to solve this conundrum.

I can understand your dislike of control, but I don't think it's about control in the way you see it. It's more about self control - limiting the suffering for yourself and others by developing positive states of mind and doing positive actions.

Personally I think the key to life is to just keep it as simple as possible, forget all the hype and do your best. Learn compassion and unconditional love. Offer support where you can. Live in the present now and believe in yourself and your dreams. I believe good karma is repaid to us in this life and future lives and the same applies to bad karma. I believe we choose our lessons before we are born into this body and we are judged by how we deal with life's challenges rather than being judged by the challenge itself. By showing appreciation and gratitude will bring more to be grateful for.

I believe we are an old soul who is using this mortal body to develop further on a spiritual level with the purpose to get closer to pure unconditional love -- source, were we are all connected in oneness.

Become aware of cause and effect and accept how it affects each of us. This means situations like bearing a disabled child might be for the purpose of teaching us and society something rather than only viewing the child as a hopeless burden to society, for example. In other words all dire conditions bestowed upon us should be viewed as more than just personal grievances.

Buddhism has too many conditions connected to its philosophy and it seems full of ambiguity, as they themselves state in one of the links you provided: "As I've been arguing for the past few blog posts, Buddhists of all backgrounds and ethnicities seem to be viewed through many layers of stereotyping that obscures who we are." If the Buddhists cannot even agree on their faith what value can it teach us? And surely if we are to follow Gods guidance He would be a fool to make it difficult for us to understand it.


There is a lot of crossover between you views and Buddhism - being positive, views on disability etc.

Buddhism has too many conditions connected to its philosophy and it seems full of ambiguity

I haven't found this to be so Dizzy. There are debates, but the thing about it is it's not about blind faith You can have discussions etc. The basic tenets still run through Buddhism.

I see you posted your first comment to the OP at roughly the same time as I did. Give me time to read and respond on it, if I feel it necessary... but you might find my views are not compatible to Buddhism as stated in my post above.

No worries Dizzy. I hope you don't thnk I'm trying to convert you. Buddhists aren't allowed to proselytise - and it doesn't work anyway. I hope you see it as an exchage of ideas.

People with Alzheimer's lose their Soul, they lose their personality self but they cannot lose their Old Soul which is immortal. The shell that holds them in this life has no bearing on their immortal being or old soul.

The Buddhist approach is to find the I/Soul/Self. The idea of no-self comes from a failure to locate it as a component that does not depend on anything else. This is the teaching on Emptiness which is a complex subject.

We choose challenges like this in advance [before we are born] because there is learning/teaching to come out of it. Others will learn from caring for an individual with alzheimers, and this could be the reason why the patient chose this condition. We should be careful before we judge any condition because all have their purposes. One day we might come back blind, I can see much learning coming from that even tho I dont like the thought as I sit here and type to you.

It is a compassionate view that you have.

This is the only way life makes sense to me, otherwise what would be the purpose of any suffering. We learn and teach each other and in connectivity we all grow from it. If we do injustice to others it might take many lives to repay that karma. There is always a reason why the suffering is there to start with even tho it may seem cruel to us on a practical level.


It is a conundrum. The Buddha's answer was that we are ignorent of our true state, the causes of our suffering, but that there is a way to escape from this.

As for finding the reasns for suffering - often there seems no rhyme or reason. I watched a programme on the Tsunami in Indonesia a few months ago, and I was struck how many people managed to explain the events in terms of punishment from God or to teach the survivors. The positive side of this is that they were able to carry on and try to make some kind of sense. I know I would strugle with that explanation, and the whole lessons/ teachings explanations. This was the problem with God for me - and one that means I wil not be someone who believes in a loving creator God. In a way, my attitude to this is more horrible - that it was just a set of unfortunate circumstances that caused the deaths of many thousands with no rhyme or reason to explain it. Buddhism explains it by saying - yes very very bad things happen. It also says that bad conditions, as well as good are subject to change, and there is a path to escape.

If you think of someone who is incorrectly convicted of a crime and they go to jail for life. That seems grossly unfair. But stop and go through it your mind and wonder why this happened. We can never know for sure, but perhaps they will teach existing convicts something of valuable, perhaps it will teach their family members lessons too. It could even mean that he never paid for his crime in a previous life. There could be any number of reasons why this could happen but its not up to us to speculate, cos if we do, invariably we would be wrong.

You're right about not understanding the impications of Karma. It is said only a Buddha has the full awareness to do that.

I also agree about learning from suffering. This is a very positive aspect of Buddhism. In our tradition it is called Transforming Negative Conditions into the Path. I know that you have a problem wit the suffering aspect, but here you've hit the nail again - it is only through the suffering that humans are motivated onto spiritual paths. It provides the impetus. As humans we suffer, but not so much that we can't progress if we have the right conditions. Animals, hell beings and hungry ghosts are unable to progres in their states because of the intense suffering. Again though, all these conditions change.

Thanks for the extract. I hope I made the position clearer and can I say that I do respect your views.

I think you mentioned a few other things in the thread - re-incarnation for one - which I will return to later.

Also sorry for the length of the post. I felt I needed to respond to it in full.

[dizzydoll]

The Buddhist approach is to find the I/Soul/Self. The idea of no-self comes from a failure to locate it as a component that does not depend on anything else. This is the teaching on Emptiness which is a complex subject.

Before I go, this doesnt make sense at all. Can you rephrase?

I know I would strugle with that explanation, and the whole lessons/ teachings explanations. This was the problem with God for me - and one that means I wil not be someone who believes in a loving creator God. In a way, my attitude to this is more horrible - that it was just a set of unfortunate circumstances that caused the deaths of many thousands with no rhyme or reason to explain it

But there is a reason, we choose conditions like that for a reason. No good questioning it, the answers will not come to our mortal souls but our immortal souls know so much more. There are certain things we will never know in our current consciousness. If you think about it technology advances alongside with these disasters, it could simply mean we are on route to mastering our weather conditions and there will be causalities along the way. There is no point looking for answers to this, its not our business... those Old Souls chose to die or live through those harsh conditions for a reason, which will always elude us because we dont have the bigger picture.

it is only through the suffering that humans are motivated onto spiritual paths.

I am not sure I would buy into that so much, but I do feel the suffering people are subjected to are always for a reason beyond our understanding, but if one sits and allows your mind to look for reasons for these sufferings one will invariably find at least two or three probable causes.. but of course it could only be speculation, because we dont have all the answers. We never do know the answers while in our mortal bodies, only our immortal soul knows... and that is all that is important to our personal growth and progress on the Old Souls journey.

Good night, I am really out of here now. Look forward to reading your commentary on how reincarnation fits into Buddhism and why.

[Paulclem]

The Buddhist approach is to find the I/Soul/Self. The idea of no-self comes from a failure to locate it as a component that does not depend on anything else. This is the teaching on Emptiness which is a complex subject.

I'm sorry Dizzy It's my poor exposition. The Hindu tradition that the Buddha came from has the idea of a soul. What Buddhism says is that on examining the body through meditation, no permanent self can be established. It is just a collection of bits - including sense perception touch taste sight etc. Thus how can something immortal be made of things that are transient? They can't be as their nature doesn't last.

It's not a very good description, so apologies. It is a difficult topic.

[dizzydoll]

Paul the immortal being is not transient, the word immortal means it never dies -- so to say immortal is transient is a contradiction right there.

As I said I know precious little about Buddhism but I am sure Buddha said we all grow at our own pace and so therefore must follow what makes us feel comfortable, or something to that effect.

The Hindu tradition that the Buddha came from has the idea of a soul. What Buddhism says is that on examining the body through meditation, no permanent self can be established. It is just a collection of bits - including sense perception touch taste sight etc. Thus how can something immortal be made of things that are transient? They can't be as their nature doesn't last.

The way you have worded this fits in exactly with my beliefs on reincarnation -- what you write here is true: "no permanent self can be established", this is because we are not ever permanent, we will die and we will be reborn. Today I am white, next life I might be black or Chinese or whatever! So what you say is absolutely true... when you look at yourself in the mirror, that is not you. The real you is your "old soul", which is permanent and it will select different bodies to return to life.

Taste, sight etc is all part of this life we live and hopefully part of our next life unless we choose to be blind for example. If you do chose to come back as a blind person, there is learning and teaching to be shared in this condition. Learn to see the advantages of adversity and your scope life will dramatically widen.

The only part of your comment I didnt understand was your thoughts that the immortal being [old soul] is transient. It certainly is not... your old soul is the "real you". The shell that your life is sitting in right now is not the real you, it is just a stepping stone on a wonderful journey to many future lives...

What if, the things we think today will manifest in our future lives? Personally I think that is happening right now as humanities thoughts unfold to new horizons. I remember being told when I was young... "if you can think it, its possible". People thought they could fly and they did.

All we have to remember is that we choose whatever we face. If we live in a village and are killed by an earthquake it was meant to be, we chose to be the dummies to help other people by way of technology build homes better to withstand natural disasters. As I often say, I believe we are at the very early stages of human evolution and we will eventually learn to master the weather one day among other amazing things in the not too far distant future.

[Paulclem]

so to say immortal is transient is a contradiction right there.

That's the point that is being made. Buddhist meditators have found that the self is made up of transient bits. if this is the case, then an immortal soul cannot exist.

this is because we are not ever permanent, we will die and we will be reborn. Today I am white, next life I might be black or Chinese or whatever! So what you say is absolutely true... when you look at yourself in the mirror, that is not you. The real you is your "old soul", which is permanent and it will select different bodies to return to life.

Not permanent - this is true. The question still arises how can a permanent or immortal soul come from this.

From the buddhist view this is idealistic, in that humans are merely one form that exists in samsara. if a person is karmically propelled to the human realm, then that is condsidered to be rare. its a scary thought that our next life could be as an insect/ animal etc.

What if, the things we think today will manifest in our future lives? Personally I think that is happening right now as humanities thoughts unfold to new horizons. I remember being told when I was young... "if you can think it, its possible". People thought they could fly and they did.

I think there is mileage in this thought in that the idea of say the internet - unthinkable 50 years ago - have taken off. It does accord with Buddhist thought - mind creates reality.

All we have to remember is that we choose whatever we face. If we live in a village and are killed by an earthquake it was meant to be, we chose to be the dummies to help other people by way of technology build homes better to withstand natural disasters. As I often say, I believe we are at the very early stages of human evolution and we will eventually learn to master the weather one day among other amazing things in the not too far distant future.

This view assumes an element of control by the being which, unless they are highly realised, doesn't exist for beings. The Buddhist view is that beings are ignorant of the true reality, and this precipitates them to unfortunate rebirths.

[dizzydoll]

Buddhist meditators have found that the self is made up of transient bits. if this is the case, then an immortal soul cannot exist.

Firstly lets think of this clearly, in those days the vocabulary in all languages was simpler. Trouble with todays writers they are all concentrating more on their creative writing skills than getting the true message across. Not only that but translations from one language to the next and books retranslated as time goes on to produce more works. So lets put all that aside and keep it simple shall we.

Bits and pieces - covers a big grey area. One can see our various lives as "bits and pieces" which will eventually make up the whole. So the current self is transient but our old soul is NOT transient. Our old soul is immortal.

Transient:

1. short in duration: lasting for only a short time and quickly coming to an end, disappearing, or changing
a transient emotion
transient sunlight on an otherwise cloudy day

2. not permanently settled in place: staying in a place for only a short period of time transient workers

is quite the opposite to...

immortal:

1. never dying: able to have eternal life or existence
2. famous: very famous and likely to be remembered for a long time

Your sentence contradicts itself and if you have read it somewhere, its must be a bad translation.

The Old Soul cannot be seen with the naked eye, it can be felt... because its your inner self, your intuition, your guiding Light... its what gives you a sense of purpose. We cannot see it but we know its there. Its our inner child. From one life to the other, we dont recall our memories from before. But there is more than enough proof of people being regressed to previous lives. The Old Soul is connected to Infinite Source -- where it all began.

We are Not permanent - this is true. The question still arises how can a permanent or immortal soul come from this.

Come from what? Our Old Soul came first then it chooses to lives in living bodies over many incarnations. The old soul doesnt arise from anything, our current little self is used by our old soul to progress on many levels, by way of intellectual growth, spiritual growth , emotional growth , physical growth. And I would add intuitive growth too.

if a person is karmically propelled to the human realm, then that is condsidered to be rare. its a scary thought that our next life could be as an insect/ animal etc.

You see Buddhism was derived from other older faiths and they added their own bent into their teachings. Its not rare at all to die and be reborn, it will happen to all of us forever. Reincarnation never ceases, its like energy. Energy never dies, it just changes form. I know some Buddhists seem to think we only get reincarnated until we have learned whatever we are supposed to learn and then we are never reincarnated anymore. This is simply NOT true, energy never dies and nor does our Old Soul... it will continue to be reborn into the lives we choose. I dont believe we come back as insects or animals, in fact we dont come back as anything except another human being to my knowledge.

This view assumes an element of control by the being which, unless they are highly realised, doesn't exist for beings. The Buddhist view is that beings are ignorant of the true reality, and this precipitates them to unfortunate rebirths.

You would have to reword you first sentence, I dont understand it.
The second sentence is true, "we are ignorant of true reality" because true reality is our Old Soul.. in which lies all truth.
I dont understand this section: "precipitates them to unfortunate rebirths" because we are all reborn, sometimes into less fortunate conditions than others.

[The Atheist]

But there is more than enough proof of people being regressed to previous lives.

What a strange use of the word "proof".

The part I always struggle with is how one person - say Napoleon Bonaparte - has been reincarnated in so many different people. There are dozens of people who used to be him, apparently.

[dizzydoll]

What a strange use of the word "proof".

The part I always struggle with is how one person - say Napoleon Bonaparte - has been reincarnated in so many different people. There are dozens of people who used to be him, apparently.

Well you probably wouldnt care two hoots about my proof but I went to Omega Institute to do a Regression Course with Dr. Brian Weiss. Author of Many Lives Many Masters among other books. He was also head of the psychiatric dept at a Miami University, I cant recall the name of the university but he is a well known credible doctor. Many people have been regressed around the world, not only he offers this service. Long before him spiritual swamis were accustomed to regressing themselves and others for many years before hand, but the practice was never taken seriously [or believed for that matter] until a doctor of one of the disciplines became enlightened to its potential.

As far as Napoleon Bonaparte is concerned he could have come back as Idi Amin Dada for all I care:

Idi Amin Dada (c.1925[A] – 16 August 2003) was the military dictator and President of Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Amin joined the British colonial regiment, the King's African Rifles, in 1946, and eventually held the rank of Major General and Commander of the Ugandan Army prior to taking power in a military coup of January 1971, deposing Milton Obote. He later promoted himself to Field Marshal while he was the head of state.

Or any other equally evil despot leader to curse this earth. One thing is for sure, he is a prime example of "a being" who would have to return to many, many incarnations [perhaps millions] to repay his dept to society. You have to admit, the world is not short of evil... but even they will eventually cleanse their Old Souls through reincarnation. Maybe he is in Ethiopia right now as a starving child and will not live too long but will live in suffering... and then come back to more suffering etc, until the debt is paid.... Or else he could still be an evil leader somewhere in the world.

We will never know, its not our business... only our personal growth is our business.

[NikolaiI]

I cannot help but think that Paul, your reasons against a permanent self are very little different from the kind any person who doesn't believe in Buddha-nature would use to say that it is simply made up, a fantasy. Buddhism has done a good job of creating a working system of ontology, one which is far better at dealing with phenomena and existence than what the televisions tell us is real. And yet, the ideas of selflessness of phenomena and forms, and other cornerstones of Buddhist ontology are not merely abstract ideas, with no relation to anything else in life. Indeed, another core tenant of Buddhism is inter-dependence. None-the-less, the idea of selflessness of phenomena and forms is not merely an idea which is meant to be abstract and forever remain that way. Rather, it is very intimately connected to the concepts of interdependence, and of unity of opposites. They are related and connected and form part of the "whole" picture of the goal of Buddhist's inner path; that is, enlightenment or realization of reality and mind.

Your constant refusal and rejection and negation of the term of self is not as deep as you think. A simple look at terms will show why. Why is it that you reject absolutely when someone speaks of self, when in any Buddhist scripture or text or writing, the term mind is used throughout. Why do you not pick apart the writings of those masters at every point, and try to correct them, to tell them, "Ah, but Buddhism teaches us that every form's real nature is selflessness - so there is no such thing as 'mind.'" Well you would be correct, legalistically, but you'd be missing the point, especially if these masters were indeed enlightened and had valuable lessons to teach you.

The real nature of self is selflessness - but I will tell you the meaning of this. It is that self has no existence independent of all other forms and phenomena. So here we find the meeting of the concepts of selflessness, inter-dependence, and unity, in a very direct way. If you fail to grasp this, and if you treat these ideas as abstracts and not parts of the mind which can experience enlightenment; then you will miss it as well. If you focus exclusively on the concept of selflessness without context, you will not understand it truly and it will not be ultimately helpful to you. For without discernment of the real meaning of the concept, or knowledge of its context and purpose, its reason, then how will you discern where it should be applied? If you use it for itself alone, without its connection to the rest of Buddhist ontology, it loses its meaning and value. Then it could be used merely for an argument, or an unrelated inquiry, for example to try to understand an isolated case of whether a tree is a tree.

A tree is a tree, yet in another level of understanding it can be seen as inter-dependent with all other living and non-living forms. The selflessness of the tree has no meaning without understanding the creative energy which is the tree's essence - and it is the same energy which is our body, our clothes, our mind, and all life. As I have said before... it is not only every living being which has Buddha-nature as its real nature, but it is every non-living form of existence as well. This is the sphere of questioning which is related to determining what the quality of energy is - whether it is a personal or an impersonal type.

The important thing is that everyone must discover for themselves what is reality. I engage you in this way, with words, but argument itself is a failed past time. The reality of existence is far, far simpler than you would ever believe. It's such a simple thing and it has nothing to do with any of this. Yes all of these things we discuss have their place - but it's in the back. Again, the reality of experience in Buddhism is Gate Paragate, Beyond, Completely beyond everything else, yet it's also more simple than anything. It may be a paradox to some that the ultimate prize, that experience of reality which is clearest and fullest, which having these qualities is also the most valuable - that this principle of reality is also the simplest and most basic. It is the most universal and it is not kept within Buddhism only.

Not only on our planet does all of this exist or apply to. We are attempting to discover universal and absolute truth. And what the conclusion is - it is a very beautiful thing, and so utterly simple as to escape notice almost always. No, it isn't a simple word, because a word is a concept in itself; and I will suggest you read that book by Inada to get a good understanding of the limitations there involved. Well the conclusion has to do with evolution, peace, harmony, beauty, happiness, and absolute perfection. Perhaps it has to do with knowing the quantum field, as Diz might attest.

Peace.

[The Atheist]

Well you probably wouldnt care two hoots about my proof but I went to Omega Institute to do a Regression Course with Dr. Brian Weiss.

Dear old Brian; I know lots about him.

Even his fellow reincarnation "researcher", the late Dr. Ian Stevenson rubbished hyponotic progression - a procedure well known to be dangerously flawed.

I like the way he doesn't let things like science stand in the way when the proof is requested, because it is factual that Weiss has never used blinding, let alone double-blinding in his "tests". or any other form of control, for that matter. You can't let the scientific method interfere with a priori reasoning.

As far as Napoleon Bonaparte is concerned he could have come back as Idi Amin Dada for all I care.

Sorry, I was probably unclear through being facetious. (I also know all about Idid Amin as well.)

My point was that a study of the "research" undertaken by people like Weiss and Dean Radin shows an amazing preponderance of people who believe they were the exact same person in a past life.

Does the "soul" spilt up into little bits so that a dead dude can be reincarnated as several people at the same time? These people are all 100% convinced that they were that person in a past life, so that must be the only answer. None of them could be wrong or misguided, could they? After all, they all used identical techniques to get in touch with their former life/lives.

Interesting stuff.

We will never know, its not our business... only our personal growth is our business.

Then why are you making such a big deal out of it all? You seem to be contradicting yoruself with that statement - on one hand, it's all very personal, but on the other, you're prepared to argue that you're right.

[The Atheist]

... The selflessness of the tree has no meaning without understanding the creative energy which is the tree's essence - and it is the same energy which is our body, our clothes, our mind, and all life.....

I'm not going to argue any of your premises, but it seems to me that the true definition of "selflessness" would only apply if there is choice involved. A rock can't be selfless because it's a rock and cannot change into anything else.

Are you saying seeds have choices on whether or not they become trees?