> Dear Sumana,
> How and why would anatta not fit with kamma and rebirth. What does that
> Buddhadasa bhikkhu say?
> Robertk

Dear Robert, As you requested:

Anattā & Rebirth



by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu





Given to a group of students from Puget Sound University. The
explanations of rebirth that they had heard seemed to contradict the
principle of anattā. They asked Tan Ajarn to clarify the seeming
contradiction.



Today, we will speak about anattā and rebirth. We'll discuss anattā
first, and then discuss rebirth. If we understand anattā properly, it
will be easy to understand rebirth correctly. [1]

The feeling that one is a self occurs naturally and instinctually.
Hence, people say "self." Then, they teach that there's a higher self,
one more special or more profound than the usual daily self. Through
this process of teaching and educating, the belief in self develops
into the highest self, an eternal soul. This kind of belief and
teaching was quite common. When the Buddha appeared, however, he
taught the opposite, that all those things are anattā (not-self). [2]

The primitives who long ago lived in forests and caves believed there
is attā. They also believed inspirits, powers, and ghosts, which were
taken to be selves, also. This common belief occurs easily in the
human mind. Thus, there happened the teaching of attā, then there
appeared the ceremonies, rituals, and rites in relation to all those
spirits, angels, demons, and things. As civilization develops further,
the beliefs about self and spirits also develop, as do the
corresponding ceremonies and rituals. The highest, most fully
developed version of such beliefs occurred in India during the era of
the Upanishads, which taught attā as it is believed today: that there
is a self – a fundamental basis or reality – in living things, which
is successively reincarnated, which is slowly purified through this
long succession of births until it finishes in eternity. This is the
most highly developed theory of the primitive belief in self. This is
how the highest attā must be taught. [3]

This teaching of self and soul spread from India into other cultures,
as far as it could go. In most cultures, there was already a
receptivity for this idea, even though their teachings weren't
previously connected to India. So they welcomed it. Other cultures
accepted this belief and it spread around the world. Even in Thailand,
the Upanishadic teaching on the existence of self was taught to the
fullest extent before Buddhism arrived. [4]

The teaching of the existence of attā progressed to its highest form
in India during the Upanishad era. The Vedanta, in particular, taught
the highest self. When there is the highest attā, the eternal self,
it's called "sammā." This is a different meaning of sammā than we're
accustomed to in Buddhism. It has the same meaning as "paramatman."
This then, in India at that time, was considered the highest, newest,
most excellent teaching. Such was the situation as the Buddha was
about to appear. [5]

When the Buddha appeared, he thought in a new way. He saw that this
teaching of attā and self was not true. First, the thing they were
talking about did not actually exist. Second, the belief in attā, the
teaching that attā exists, is the cause of dukkha. He pointed out that
all dukkha is based in what we call the "self." The Buddha taught
anattā for these two reasons: attā is wrong and it is the cause of
ödukkhaò. Thus, there appeared the teaching of anattā. [6]

We also should know that non-Buddhist groups had already begun to
speak of anattā to some extent, but theirs was anattā in minor things,
only in little things. They still held to a "true self" and
distinguished some things as anattā, but only minor things, such as,
the body, wealth, possessions, food, and different stimulating and
deluding things [stimulants& delusions]. They also taught anattā, but
held to a "self" as existing in people. This self will change, be
reborn, getting better and better, until reaching the ultimate as
"eternal attā." [7]

Now, we will consider, in particular, why the feeling that there is an
attā occurs. Please give special attention to this matter. It happens
because the instincts feel or sense that there is a self in life. This
happens by itself and is a survival mechanism that we can find in all
organisms. But please understand that instinctual knowledge is not
correct. It still lacks vijjā (correct knowledge); avijjā (ignorance)
remains. Thus, experiences that follow the instincts exclusively
belong to avijjā. They cause us to feel that there is a self, which is
a most important awareness in living. We can see that it is necessary
for survival. Life bases itself on the aim that needs to be a self.
Instincts are the cause of feeling that there's a self, although it
isn't correct. [8]

Now, on the second level of the development of attā, avijjā increases
and the sense of self builds. For example, the infant is born at first
with a basic feeling of self, a natural, instinctual feeling. But then
the infant is totally surrounded by all kinds of things which are good
and bad, agreeable and disagreeable, positive and negative. As there
is increasing experience of pleasure and pain, the instinctual sense
of self grows stronger and develops preferences. Because the child
does not have enough understanding to know better, avijjā increases
and the feeling of self is confirmed and consolidated. This self is
strengthened by ignorance. This is the second matter. [9]

On the third level of this development of self, of attā, there is the
cultural teaching, the knowledge passed along by parents and teachers,
that there is attā, that we have selves. This is the cultural
conditioning every child increasingly receives from parents, teachers
and other cultural elements. Even in religious teaching, when the
religion holds there is an attā, the existence of attā is taught more
and more. From all this instruction, the child strengthens the belief
in self until it becomes a deep conviction. In the third stage,
through all the cultural conditioning of parents, teachers and
religions, the belief in self becomes firmly rooted. [10]

Carefully, notice that there are three main causes or conditions for
this belief in attā. The first is the instinctual feeling, just that
basic sense of a self. Then, once born, we are surrounded by
environmental things and the foolishness about attā increases to
become avijjā. This is encouraged through all the positive and
negative factors with which the child is confronted. Next, on the
third level we are taught to believe in it all. Self is further
established, solidified, and deepened through our being taught to
believe in it. In all homes, all families, all religions; in the
schools, the temples, the synagogues, and the churches everywhere;
this belief in self and soul is very firmly established and driven
into the child's mind. Thus, this ignorant understanding grows to its
fullest extreme. [11]

The feeling that there is self is a firm foundation in everyone.
Further, every language has "self" buried within it. All languages are
full of words for self, soul, or ego. Firmly fixed in our words and
experiences, the self is very hard to give up. Although Buddhism
teaches attā, it must do so with ordinary attā words. Sometimes the
word attā is borrowed for use in Buddhism. We use the word attā in
Buddhism, but it refers to attā which is not attā, that is, attā which
is anattā. Even in Buddhism we must talk about attā a lot. [12]

Buddhists out of necessity must use the word "attā," but with another
meaning: the attā which is not-self, the self which is anattā. For
instance," self is the refuge of self; attā is the refuge of attā,"
which means that the attā which is not attā must help itself to
realize the truth of not-attā, then problems end and dukkha quenches.
Thus, in Buddhism the word attā is used, but with a new meaning: the
self which is not-self, the attā which is anattā. Understand carefully
and well this word "attā" which is "not-attā." [13]

There is also a third type of viewpoint, one which denies the
existence of anything at all. The attā which is attā is not there. The
attā which is anattā is not there. There is nothing having to do with
attā and anattā. People who think this way are called "nihilists."
They hold that nothing exists at all. [14]

So in this matter, we can distinguish three viewpoints. You ought to
know all three, understanding is then easier. The first holds that
there is an attā that is really a self in the fullest meaning of the
word. The second says there is an attā is anattā, which can't be taken
as the first kind of self, but this thing does exist. This is the
"attā which is non-attā" group. The third has nothing, says there is
nothing at all. Please consider this matter until seeing clearly the
three teachings on this subject. One group teaches existence, that
attā exists, attā according to that meaning, one-hundred percent.
Another group — Buddhism — teaches that there is attā that is not an
attā, which is anattā. The third group teaches there isn't anything at
all, teaches non-existence. [15]

If students would like to remember the specific technical terms, there
are three. The first term is "attā": there is attā which is attā. The
second term is anattā: there is attā that is not-self, that is anattā.
The third term is nirattā: without any kind of attā at all,
nothingness. One extreme of attā is that it exists fully. The other
extreme is no attā at all. Anattā, the self which is not self, is
neither extreme, and is correct. There are three words: attā, anattā,
and nirattā. They're totally different. Understand the meaning of
these three words, then you'll understand everything. [16]

The first group is the positive extreme. They believe there is attā in
the full meaning of attā .This is called sassatadiţţhi, the belief in
full existence or being. The second sort is the middle. There is the
thing which you call "attā" but it isn't really attā, it's anattā.
This is the middle or correct view. It's called sammādiţţhi. Then the
negative extreme holds that there is no existence of any kind. There's
no attā in any sense. This is called natthikadiţţhi. sassatadiţţhi is
full, unchanging existence; natthikadiţţhi isn't anything at all. In
the middle is correct Buddhism. There exists the thing which you all
call" attā." Something is there to be called "attā" or "anattā." That
is, there is everything, but we don't call it or its constituent parts
"attā." They are anattā. Right here is sammādiţţhi. This extreme is
sassatā, which is wrong. That extreme is natthikā, which is wrong. In
the middle are only the things which shouldn't be called attā, which
are anattā. This is the point we must especially study and learn. [17]

Here, I'd like to go ahead to tell you that this nothingness or
nihilism (natthikadiţţhi) is another meaning. Don't confuse the
nihilistic teaching with the Buddha's teaching of suññatā (voidness).
The correct word, voidness, still has existence, but nothing existing
as a self. Everything is void of self. There is a big difference
between nothingness and suññatā which holds that things exist void of
selfhood. To mix up and confuse natthikadiţţhi with suññatā is to
misunderstand Buddhism even more. Please distinguish the one group of
views as natthikadiţţhi and keep it separate. [18]

To remember easily: nothingness, no thing at all, is called "
natthikadiţţhi "; existence or being without attā is called "suññatā."
With natthikadiţţhi there is nothing. Suññatā exists but is void of
self. natthikadiţţhi and suññatā are not the same thing. You must
understand this properly. [19]

Once again, don't confuse natthikadiţţhi with anattā or suññatā. Don't
take nihilism to be anattā. These are totally different matters.
Anattā, suññatā, and tathatā are, they exist, but their beings are
not-self. They are anattā. [20]

Now, we come to the question of what is anattā. What are the things
which are anattā? The first one to mention is that body-mind is
anattā. The body is a physical thing that performs its various bodily
functions. It can do all the physical functions needed for life,
without requiring a self. This mind can do all the duties of mind
without requiring attā, self, soul, or atman. If we put a self or soul
in the body, that is a misunderstanding, thinking there is some attā.
Actually it's just the body that functions in all the appropriate ways
of the body. It is sensitive to things in line with the functions of a
body with a nervous system. The thing we call "mind" or "heart" can do
all of the duties natural for a "mind" or "heart." The body and mind
function perfectly well by themselves. There is no need for a third
thing – this thing people call "self" – to take possession of or
control the mind. The heart exists in its own way. Its nature is to
feel. It can do its duties within itself, according to its own
conditions and causes. Hence the body and mind are not selves, they
are anattā. [21]

We may divide life in two – body and mind – each one is anattā. If we
divide into five – the five khandhas (aggregates) – each one of them
is anattā. Rūpa, this body that we've discussed is anattā. Then, the
mind or heart can be divided into four. There is vedanā (feeling),
which is anattā. It itself feels, according to the meaning of vedanā,
with the value of vedanā. Saññā (recognition, perception) perceives in
itself, by itself. That which is sankhāra can think, can conceive
within itself. Viññāna (consciousness) is consciousness by itself.
These four are purely mental matters, yet they are still anattā. [22]

Now we come to the word "life." You can take two aspects – body and
mind – as life. You can take all five aspects – the five khandhas – as
life. Or, you can name it all in one short word: "life." Still, life
is anattā, just as body and mind are anattā, and the five khandhas are
anattā. Thus, please look carefully. Know the real thing called "life"
– it's anattā. [23]

Now we will observe the important thing called "citta," "mind," or
whatever you wish in other languages. Regarding this citta, we can
observe that everything's significance comes down to the mind. Its
meaning and value is in the mind. All things have to be known through
the mind. Because of the centrality of mind, of consciousness, there
are those who say this mind is attā, is self. Since it can do things
and feel things, and because of its many other functions, citta is
taken to be attā. But in Buddhism, "attā" is not-attā. The mind is
capable of all this awareness, of all these functions, that is just
the way the mind is. Although it can do so many different things, all
those functions are just like that, they're just what they are. There
is no self to be found in any of it, so this thing called mind is also
anattā (not-self).[24]

In short, you may regard everything that we have mentioned, whether
mental or physical, whichever khandha they may be, as having within
them a virtue or quality that allows them to do whatever it is that
they do. They all have a mechanism within themselves. Whether
material, physical, mental, or what have you– on whatever level – they
have mechanisms within themselves. They can perform their function
within themselves, so they don't need an attā to come in anywhere.
Allow us to give a tangible example of how material things can feel
within themselves through their own nervous systems. A certain kind of
grass which you have probably seen (it's all around here), opens with
its leaflets fully spread like open fingers. Touch it with your hand
and the leaflets close up, folding together like the pages of a book.
This grass can close up on itself. Although it's thoroughly material,
it still has a mechanism which can feel or experience. It closes up
just as if it can feel. Those who believe in attā believe that there's
an attā, atman, or self in this grass. Buddhism, however, holds that
there's no attā in it, that it's not-attā. It has a virtue in itself
that it can do such a thing. In this bodily system there's a nervous
system through which it can do things just as if it were a self, soul,
or whatever. So it is that on every level beginning with material life
has body, mind, and feelings, nothing needs to be attā. If attā's
existence is believed in – any kind of attā in anything – that isn't
Buddhism. It becomes animism instantly. [26]

Now we come to some further important questions. First, if there is no
self, what is this thing we calla "person"? What are we? We can say
that this is a collection of ingredients, of various parts compounded
together. We can talk about mind and body if we wish, the two primary
ingredients. We can also talk about the five khandhas: body, feeling,
perception, thought, and consciousness. We can talk in terms of the
elements (dhātu), both physical and non-physical. What we call "a
person" is these ingredients and components which have been brought
and put together. Still, they are anattā. If each of those parts,
khandhas, and elements are not self, then their combination is also
not-self. Simply having a collection of things holding together for a
little while does not mean that one has a self. [27]

The second question is: If there is no self, then who acts? Who
produces all these physical, verbal, and mental kammas (actions) and
receives the result of those actions (kamma-fruit)? Who experiences
happiness and dukkha? The "who" is "nobody." There isn't a need for
anybody. In fact, we need not use the word "who" at all. The mind can
feel, be aware, and think. It has its needs and can make the body act
or the mouth speak accordingly. The mind thinks and as a result of
that thinking there is an action: a physical, verbal or mental action
(kamma). The mind that thinks is not-self, the body that acts is not
self, the mouth that speaks is not self, so that action is not self.
The action really happens, but it is not self. Then there's a reaction
that happens as kamma-fruit. If it affects anything, just that thing
is the receiver of the kamma-fruit. But really, if we speak correctly
and straight-forwardly, there is nobody who receives the fruit of
kamma. Although a reaction occurs, it happens to the next thing. It is
a process of one thing or event conditioning the next.

If we look carefully, we see that there is one mind that thinks, that
has the intention behind the action, but the reaction is experienced
by a different mind. From one moment to the next it is a completely
different mind. It is never the same mind, let alone a self or a
"who." ("Who" implies self.) This citta is the maker of the kamma; the
fruit of kamma happens to that (next) citta. It isn't the same citta
anymore. Still, without any attā, the citta can make kamma, it can
act. And the citta which isn't attā can experience the fruit of kamma.
Whether happiness or dukkha is experienced, there is just mind
experiencing it. One doesn't need an attā, there is only experience.
There is only foolishness or intelligence. Take it as happy, it's
happiness (ösukhaò); take it as dukkha, it's dukkha. The mind alone
feels ösukhaò and dukkha, it doesn't need an attā. Thus we say that
"nobody" makes kamma. If we speak in line with Buddhist principles,
"nobody makes kamma." Although there is the acting of kamma, there is
nobody who makes it, or receives its fruit, or is the happy one or the
miserable one. There's merely citta together with body; that's all
that's needed for experience. And all of it is not-self. [28]

Now we come to the third question which they will ask: When there is
no attā, then what is reborn? What or who is reborn? Forgive us for
being forced to use crude language, but this question is absurd and
crazy. In Buddhism, there is no point in asking such a thing. There is
no place for it in Buddhism. If you ask what will be reborn next,
that's the craziest, most insane question. If right here, right now,
there is no soul, person, self, or attā, how could there be some "who"
or "someone" that goes and gets reborn? So there is no way one can ask
"who will be reborn?"Therefore, the rebirth of the same person does
not occur. But the birth of different things is happening all the
time. It happens often and continuously, but there is no rebirth.
There is no such thing, in reality, as rebirth or reincarnation. That
there is one person, one "I" or "you," getting reborn is what
reincarnation is all about. If all is anattā, there is nothing to get
reborn. There is birth, birth, birth, of course. This is obvious.
There is birth happening all the time, but it is never the same person
being born a second time. Every birth is new. So there is birth,
endlessly, constantly, but we will not call it "rebirth" or
"reincarnation." [29]

While we have the chance, let's spill all the beans– there isn't much
time left – there's no "person" or "being" (satva). What we call a
person is merely a momentary grouping that does not last. It does not
have any independent reality and is merely a stream or process of
cause and effect, which is called the "dependent origination of `no
person.'" Buddhism teaches dependent origination – this process of
causes and effects, of things continuously arising out of causes, the
causes being dependent on previous causes, the whole flow unfolding on
and on. Thus, Buddhism is the teaching of "no man," the teaching of
"no person." There's no person to live or to die or to be reborn. Now,
there's no person. It's merely the grouping of body and mind, or of
the five khandhas, or whatever you want to call it. But this grouping
which temporarily appears according to causes and conditions is not a
person. Would you please understand well that it is no person who
makes kammas, who receives fruits of kammas, who is happy, who is
dukkha, who dies, who gets reborn. These lives don't exist like that.
There is no birth or incarnation of the same person. [30]

Consider the meaning of the word "birth." Birth is an important word
which we hardly understand at all. There are three kinds of birth. The
first is the kind of birth that everybody knows about, physical birth.
The body is born out of the womb, and then grows older and older, and
then dies and is put in a coffin. That is physical birth, it leads to
physical death. The second kind of birth is mental. It happens within
the mind following the stream of dependent origination. Whenever there
is the thought "I am," "I do," "I act," "I have," "I own," "I want,"
"I get," "I exist," the birth of any one of these "I" thoughts is one
birth. This is the "birth" of upādĀna along the stream of
paÊicca-samuppāda, which is the birth of the ego. Such mental or
spiritual birth is another kind of birth. The third kind of birth is
very difficult for most people to understand. It is when one of the
āyatana, that is, sense bases, performs its respective function.
Performing some function means "that thing is born." You might not
understand that when the eye performs the function of seeing, then the
eye is born. When the eye stops functioning, then we say it ceases.
When the ear performs its function, the ear is born; when it stops,
the ear ceases. It is the same with the nose, tongue and so forth.
There is the arising and ceasing, arising and ceasing, of the
āyatananika-dhammas. Whenever something does its function, it is born,
and when it is no longer in action, then it ceases, it ends. Each time
the eye functions and ceases then functions again, it is a different
eye. Can you see how the physical eye itself from one function to the
next is not the same eye? How it is never the same ear, never the same
nervous system? All these things are happening in this way but each
time there is a birth, a different thing is born. There are only these
functions, these processes, these activities happening over and over
again. However, there is no same thing holding it all together that we
could call a self. There are these three kinds of birth, nonetheless
they aren't the birth of the same person or of the same thing. So
there is no rebirth. Please get to know these three kinds of birth:
the physical birth, the mental birth through attachment, and lastly,
the third kind of birth happening whenever there is a sensory
function. [31]

One group of people believes that there is self, there is atman, there
is a soul which is born as this person. Once the body dies, this thing
doesn't die. It goes to a new birth. Most people believe this, they
take it as the basis of their beliefs. The Upanishad texts believed
this. In Buddhism, however, there isn't such a thing. Buddhism does
not believe there is a self or soul which is born and then dies. Thus,
the rebirth of this or that person doesn't occur, because that person
doesn't exist here in the first place. This is called "physical
rebirth." It is something that should not be spoken of as "rebirth."

The Lord Buddha forbade his disciples to believe that consciousness or
a spirit (vi––öa) goes to be born. A certain bhikkhu named Sāti stated
that "As I understand the Dhamma as taught by the Blessed One, it is
this same consciousness that runs and wanders through sa×sāra (the
cycles of birth and death), not another." When other monks objected,
Sāti stubbornly clung to his "pernicious view." When this was brought
to the Buddha's attention, he himself interviewed Sāti. The later
repeated his view, to which the Buddha scolded him richly. "Misguided
man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way?
Misguided man, in many talks have I not stated consciousness to be
dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination
of consciousness?" Clearly, the Buddha did not accept that the "same
consciousness" is reborn from life to life.

Sadly there are passages even in the Tipiţaka itself which say "this
person was born" in such and such a place. When there are these
contradictions, you must find out which understanding is correct. As
to which one is correct, look for yourself. According to the main
principles there is no attā or atman. So one can't really speak of
physical birth as "rebirth." Mental birth can't be spoken of as
"rebirth," because it's the birth of a different citta. The material
or functional birth of the āyatana is not the same thing, either. For
example, the eye that sees a form this moment and the eye that sees a
form another moment is not the same eye. Hence, we do not speak of
repeated births because it's never the same eye. There's no essence or
self to any of these three eyes. There's no "new" and no "repeat,"
there's only the hetu-paccaya(causes and conditions) at some time and
there is birth. Only when there are the hetu-paccaya, is there birth.
A hundred births, a thousand births, ten thousand, a million, but
never of the same person. Never of the same attā and never of the same
thing. This is the non-existence of rebirth. [32]

Now we come to the most important matter. The Buddha said that, "I
teach only one thing: dukkha and the quenching of dukkha." That is
what all the teachings are about, dukkha and the quenching of dukkha.
He didn't talk about other things. Whether or not there is rebirth is
not the fundamental question, because once one is born here and now,
there is dukkha like this and it must be quenched like this. Even if
you are born again, dukkha is like this and must be quenched in the
same way. Why bother talking about birth or no birth? Talk only about
how dukkha arises and how dukkha is quenched. Just this is already
enough. For this reason the Buddha taught anattā. Once anattā is fully
realized, there is no dukkha. When there is no attā, dukkha isn't
born, anymore. Therefore, he taught the quenching of dukkha, that is,
he taught this matter of not-self. The teaching of anattā is essential
for the ending of dukkha. Arguments and discussions about whether
there is rebirth or not area waste of time. Whether "it" will be born
or not, there is still this business of quenching dukkha like this.
It's better to speak about this quenching of dukkha instead. This
quenching of dukkha is the fact that there is no attā, is
understanding that everything is anattā. (33)

We can conclude by saying that if you understand anattā correctly and
truly, then you will discover for yourself that there is no rebirth
and no reincarnation. The matter is finished.

May we end today's lecture. Time is up and it's time to eat. I must
take some nursing food, according to doctor's orders. (34)

translated by Santikaro Bhikkhu

typed by Sean MacCarthey