Buddha on Everything

"Monks, I will teach you *everything. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, Blessed One," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is everything? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called everything. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this everything, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

(Sabba Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 35:23, Pali canon)

*Note: The Pali word sabba translated here as ‘everything’ is elsewhere rendered ‘the all.’ As this is rather an obscure term, somewhat philosophical sounding, here a more generally-understandable word has been used. Moreover, in effect, both translations amount to the same thing which is the totality of one’s experience, both psychological & physical, and as one implication of this teaching is that complicated philosophies of self are negated, the simple word ‘everything’ seems appropriate.

Goodwill to All (Sentient Beings)

“In gladness and in safety, may all beings be at ease!

Whatever beings there may be, whether they are weak or strong,

The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,

The seen and the unseen, those living near and far away,

Those born and to be born; may all beings be at ease!”

(Buddha, Karaniya-Metta Sutta, Sutta Nipata 1:8, Pali canon)

 In many countries this time of year is when we usually remember the ideal of “goodwill to all men.” In these more ‘enlightened’ modern times, the use of the word “men” is often considered redundant, better replaced with “people,” “everyone,” or simply omitted altogether. So, perhaps “goodwill to all” is more appropriate nowadays. Most reasonably-minded people would surely agree with this, wouldn’t they? After all, are we wishing goodwill only to men or to women & children also? Smiling to a stranger, a friendly greeting & generosity to those in need are all ways in which this worthy sentiment can be put into practice. Indeed, any act of kindness is a manifestation of the wish, “Goodwill to all.”

In Buddhism, goodwill is an important quality praised by Buddha & all wise teachers. Called metta in Pali and maitri in Sanskrit, the main two scriptural languages of Buddhism, goodwill is the subject of many important discourses by Buddha. Also translated as loving-kindness or just kindness, metta is a mental quality that Buddhists are encouraged to develop both in meditative practices & in daily life. One way that it is expressed is in the phrase, “May all beings be happy,” which is also rendered, “May all beings be at ease.” To have goodwill with our family, friends, neighbors & strangers is an important aspect of Buddhist life, and without it we might consider someone only ‘half a Buddhist,’ at best.

Analyzing the phrase, “May all beings be happy,” it’s worth looking at the word “beings.” Why do we use this word and not people or humans? As Buddhists, we foster goodwill for all sentient beings. Any being that is capable of thought, feeling or suffering (dukkha) is worthy of our kindness, and if we open our hearts appropriately, a natural outpouring of goodwill will flow towards all such beings. Traditionally, the list of beings worthy of our goodwill includes not only humans but also gods, demons, ghosts, spirits & animals. Presumably, extraterrestrials are also rightful recipients of metta also, as are conscious, feeling forms of artificial intelligence.

Whether we believe in gods, ghosts and ‘greys’ or not, it is certain that animals qualify as sentient beings, and therefore are appropriate ‘targets’ of goodwill. So, for Buddhists, it isn’t only humans that should receive our goodwill at this time of year, but also dogs, cats, birds, fish, spiders, insects & any other creatures that we encounter. Putting out food & water for birds or other animals during the festive season is a wonderful way to be kind towards our fellow suffering beings, as is a kindly pat on the head as opposed to a kick up the tail! Moreover, perhaps it might be an idea to think of the animals that will be slaughtered for our consumption during the festivities: Do they really need to die so that we can eat their flesh during the holidays? Is a nut cutlet as opposed to a turkey a more kindly choice?

Some might say that all this is good and well, but if our actions are kind but our minds are full of unkind thoughts, isn’t there something inherently contradictory there? Moreover, once the festive period comes to an end, or our patience is pushed too far, won’t the outer thin veneer of kindliness disappear like a mirage, only to be replaced with a rush of anger or ill-will? Well, in truth, the above is quite possible. But, there are practical steps that we can take to not only sustain our goodwill over yuletide, but also beyond into our everyday lives over the coming years. One such way is to cultivate goodwill (called metta-bhavana in Pali), which is a popular practice found across various Buddhist schools in a variety of ways, but all of which share the common goal of developing a mind full of goodwill & harmlessness. The method described below is the one found in very early Buddhist texts, and attributed to Buddha himself. It is not necessary to sit in a cross-legged meditation pose for this practice, though one can if one wishes (especially if the intent is to develop deep levels of concentration, but that isn’t the case here).

“One abides, having suffused with a mind of benevolence one direction of the world, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth, and so above, below, around and everywhere, and to all as to himself; one abides suffusing the entire universe with benevolence, with a mind grown great, lofty, boundless and free from enmity and ill will.”

(Buddha, Vatthupama Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 7, Pali canon)

Cultivating goodwill this way as often as possible will soften the mind, making it more prone to kindness and less likely to get angry or aggressive towards others. It also facilitates an ability to develop empathy towards others, feeling their pain & hurt, and becoming a better person for it. Another benefit is that one actually becomes happier within oneself, for one is happier with oneself, knowing that kindness and not ill-will dominate the mind. There are other advantages of metta-development described in the early texts which include: “One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The gods protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and – if penetrating no higher – is headed for the Brahma worlds (Mettanisamsa Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 11:16, Pali canon).”

Now, some of the claims above may seem to be hyperbole, such as being impervious to fire, poison or weapons. But, perhaps this simply means that when one is full of kindness it’s obvious to others and they are therefore unlikely to try to burn, poison or shoot someone they see as kind. Whatever the case, this author can vouch from personal experience that cultivation of goodwill can certainly lead to many of the other claimed benefits, such as a sound sleep, better relation s with those that one meets (both human & animal), and that meditative concentration is facilitated. So, as well as benefitting others through one’s goodwill, one benefits oneself also. Everyone’s a winner with metta! This holiday season, why not try metta meditation, or just being kinder; and why stop there? If we all cultivate goodwill towards each other throughout our lives, what an even more wonderful place this world would be, wouldn’t it?

Related links on this site:Karaniya Metta Sutta
Metta / Loving-Kindness
Metta-bhavana (Loving-Kindness Meditation)
Karaniya Metta Sutta Reflections

Buddha on the Benefits of Goodwill

Monks, for one whose awareness-release through goodwill is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven benefits can be expected. Which eleven?

One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and — if penetrating no higher — is headed for the Brahma worlds.

These are the eleven benefits that can be expected for one whose awareness-release through goodwill is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken.

(Metta Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 11:16, Pali Canon. Notes: This sutta is a companion to the Karaniya Metta Sutta found here, also sometimes known as the Metta Sutta; devas are celestial beings & the brahma worlds are celestial abodes, both of which are sometimes interpreted as psychological states as much as objective realities.)

Buddha on How All Appears Void

Material form is a lump of foam,

Feeling is a water bubble,

Perception is just a mirage;

Volitions are like a plantain’s trunk,

Consciousness, a magic trick –

So says the Kinsman of the Sun.

 

However one may ponder it

Or carefully inquire,

All appears both void and vacant

When it’s seen in truth.

 

(Buddha, extracted from the Phena Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 22:95, Pali Canon. Notes: The above verses are a reflection on the five aggregates, a central teaching of Buddhism; ‘Kinsman of the Sun’ is another name for Buddha)

Buddha, Self & No-Self

“Suffering exists, but no sufferer can be found.

Actions exist, but no doer of actions is there.

Nirvana exists, but no one who enters it.

The Path exists, but no traveler can be seen.”

(Visuddimagga, 513)

The Buddha taught that there is no permanent individual self (anatta), and that if we fully realize this for ourselves we will be enlightened just like him. The important word here is ‘realize,’ for if we merely hold the view of not-self, we will not actually be enlightened, but rather clinging to a concept. The concept, or view (ditthi) of not-self is, from the Buddhist perspective, an improvement on the self-view (atta-ditthi), but it is still a pale imitation of the real thing. Believing something is one thing, but knowing it is another and the Buddha stated that if we really wish to escape the claws of suffering, we must realize what the extract above by Buddhaghosa describes as “Suffering exists, but no sufferer can be found.”

The Buddha’s teaching on not-self is unique among the world’s great religions, with all the other major faiths making the assumption that there is a soul or self of some description or another (atta-ditthi). They take as true what Buddhism classes as the eternalist view (sassata-ditthi), which is one of the two extreme views criticized by the Buddha. Eternalists believe that there is a permanent, individual soul in each of us that lives forever, either being reborn life-to-life, or being sent to heaven or hell upon physical death. Hinduism is an example of a faith that postulates that an eternal self reincarnates through a myriad lifetimes, with Sikhism and Jainism promoting essentially the same idea. The three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – tell us that we have undying souls that either end up in heaven or hell after death, depending on our behavior during just one life upon this earth.

The other main form of self-view is the annihilationist view (uccheda-ditthi), which states that although everyone does indeed have a separate self, it does not precede or survive this life. This is essentially the materialist view that modern scientifically-influenced people hold, such as the Darwinists and other non-religious people. The difference between this view and the Buddha’s is that annihilationism still presumes the existence of a real self (atta), whereas Buddhism declares that there has never been a self (anatta). The Buddhist understanding of no-self will be explored a little later, but first, we have a brief excursion to make into a third group of false views that the Buddha listed which, like him, denied the existence of a permanent, separate self, but unlike him, also denied the law of karma.

The first of these three anti-karma beliefs is called the inefficacy-of-action-view (akiraya-ditthi), which states that because there is no self, no karma and no karma results, our actions are meaningless and without any karmic consequences. The next idea is that of the view of non-causality (ahetuka-ditthi), in which the believer in no-self holds the opinion that things happen purely by chance, without prior conditioning factors, and that in turn our actions have no direct influence on future occurrences, either. The last false understanding of there being no self and no karmic process is called the nihilistic view (nattika-ditthi). Nihilists suppose that the universe is empty not only of any self or karmic process, but that it is also therefore empty of any meaning. It doesn’t matter what we do, because there’s no one to suffer our wrong doings and no one to benefit from our virtuous behavior. As with the annihilationist view, nihilism has gained a certain popularity with some modernists, among them anarchists and materialistic hedonists, who feel that they can do whatever takes their fancy as nothing really matters anyhow.

“This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality – upon the idea of existence and the idea of nonexistence. But for one that sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no idea of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world with correct wisdom, there is no idea of existence in regard to the world.” (Samyutta Nikaya 12:15)

As his words to the monk Kaccanagotta illustrate above, the Buddha held what he considered the Middle Way between the extremes of eternalism (“the idea of existence”) and annihilationism (“the idea of nonexistence”). In this quote, by the word “world” the Buddha means the world as it is experienced, in other words, all sense data that is received, interpreted, and reacted to by the mind. It is existent in that mental and physical phenomena are apparent, and yet it is nonexistent in that there’s no distinct self here experiencing it all. In this light, it is worthwhile rereading the verse from the Visuddhimagga found at the top of this article, as long as you see that there is in truth no one actually doing the reading!

With the teachings on karma and dependent arising (paticca-samuppada), the Buddha also avoided the extreme positions taken up by those holding ideas like the inefficacy-of-action view, the view of non-causality, and the nihilist view. Karma and karmic fruition describe existence in terms and actions and their consequences; that is to say, whatever we do, say, or think has repercussions far beyond this present moment (although they certainly influence current events also.) Recognition of karma and its results negates the idea of non-causality, as well as giving nihilists pause for thought. The Buddha’s radical, and like anatta unique, teaching of dependent arising also leaves those with the inefficacy-of-action view much to ponder, in that it describes a clear and logical set of conditioning factors that give order and meaning to life. Here’s a typical description of dependent arising as given by the Buddha in the Pali Canon:

“On ignorance (avijja) depend the karmic formations (sankhara); on the karmic formations depends consciousness (vinnana); on consciousness depends mind-and-form (nama-rupa); on mind-and-form depend the six sense-bases (salayatana); on the six sense-bases depends contact (phassa): on contact depends feeling (vedana): on feeling depends craving(tanha); on craving depends clinging (upadana); on clinging depends becoming (bhava); on becoming depends birth (jati); and on birth depends decay-and-death (jara-marana)." (Samyutta Nikaya 12.2)

From this description of the process of dependent arising it can be seen that the Buddha espoused a very detailed alternative to the non-causal and meaningless philosophies we have been examining. Whether we accept (or even fully understand) dependent arising, the step-by-step nature of its progression from ignorance (of the way things truly are) to eventual decay and death has a certain appeal that can leave the nihilists and other hedonists seeming rather inattentive and shortsighted. If we are to be attached to views, surely the Buddha’s Right View which includes karma and dependent arising makes more sense to both the mind and heart than the views of the eternalists, annihilationists, and thir ilk. (This article is not the place to explore dependent arising in more depth, but if there is interest on the part of this blog’s readership, it certainly can be the focus of a future post.)

Returning to the Buddha’s conception of karma and rebirth, some readers may be wondering how, if there is no permanent, separate self to be reborn, rebirth takes place, and also who, if there is no such self, it is that performs actions and receives their results. Well, a highly-detailed account of dependent arising was the Buddha’s main response to this question, but in the modest environment of a blog, a somewhat simpler explanation will be attempted! It is aspects of the mind that are reborn rather than a soul or personality, as such. Mental habits, attachments, and thought processes not only traverse time and space by ‘popping up’ in our brains during this life, but can also enter an embryo or foetus, a bit like radio waves or electrical impulses traversing the ether to be received at some future point. According to the Buddha, karmic results can also manifest (in relation to the mind-elements that created them) in future lives, as well as in the present one.

Another way in which the Buddha nullifies self-view is with his teaching of the five aggregates (panca-khandha), which he stated comprised the entiety of a person, leaving nothing to be considered as a permanent, separate self or soul. The five aggregates are as follows:

• The aggregate of corporality (rupa-khandha)

• The aggregate of feeling (vedana-khandha)

• The aggregate of perception (sanna)

• The aggregate of mental formations (sankhara-khandha)

• The aggregate of consciousness (vinnana-khandha)

The first aggregate of corporality means the body, that is, the physical components that make it up; the second aggregate of feeling indicates those emotional responses to mental and physical stimuli, the three basic forms of which are pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral; the third aggregate of perception refers to the recognition of objects, both mental and physical, and includes memory; the aggregate of mental formations applies to any psychological qualities, including volition, concentration, faith, compassion, delusion, hate, and envy; the aggregate of consciousness is that awareness dependent upon one or other of the other four aggregates, such as consciousness of feeling envy. As the following quotation points out, in his teaching of the five aggregates, the Buddha leaves no room for a separate, individual soul or self:

“Now, if anyone should put the question, whether I admit any theory at all, he should be answered thus:

The Tathagata is free from any view, for the Tathagata has understood what corporeality is, and how it arises and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises and passes away. He has understood what mental formations are, and how they arise and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises and passes away. Therefore, I say, the Tathagata has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of ‘I’ and ‘mine.’”

(Majjhima Nikaya, 72)

It’s interesting to note in the above words that not only does the teaching of the five aggregates cancel out self-view, but it also negates any views of whether the self exists or doesn’t exist, for as written at the top of this article, the Buddha taught that we need to realize that there is no permanent separate self if we wish to awaken to reality. Clinging to the view of not-self (anatta) is not enough: we must see this Truth and then live from it to really benefit from it. Otherwise, we are caught up in the realm of views, which as the Buddha declared, he did not enter into to. Transcending both self and all views, we fulfill the words from Buddhaghosa’s verse that opened this exploration: “Nirvana exists, but no one that enters it.” Bon voyage, no one!

Note: This post was first published on this blog in October 2010.

Buddha on the Qualities of the Dharma

I have heard that at one time the Blessed One was staying at Vesali, in the Peaked Roof Hall in the Great Forest.

Then Mahapajapati Gotami went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, stood to one side. As she was standing there she said to him: "It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One would teach me the Dharma in brief such that, having heard the Dharma from the Blessed One, I might dwell alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute."

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dharma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Mahapajapati Gotami delighted at his words.

(Gotami Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 8:53, Tipitaka)
*Notes: Mahapajapati Gotami was Buddha's aunt & adoptive mother who became the first Buddhist nun, and is an important figure in the early development of Buddhism; here, Dharma indicates Buddha's teachings & Vinaya refers to the rules for monks & nuns.

Buddha on Two Views

“Monks, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or priests who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or priests who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.

 "Any recluses or priests who do not understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger and the escape in the case of these two views are affected by lust, affected by hate, affected by delusion, affected by craving, affected by clinging, without vision, given to favoring and opposing, and they delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are not freed from birth, aging and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; they are not freed from suffering, I say.

 "Any recluses or priests who understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger and the escape in the case of these two views are without lust, without hate, without delusion, without craving, without clinging, with vision, not given to favoring and opposing, and they do not delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are freed from birth, aging and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; they are freed from suffering, I say.”

 (Buddha, taken from the Cula-sihanada Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 11, Tipitaka. Notes: although addressed to Buddhist monks & talking about recluses and priests, the above is applicable to anyone; being and non-being can also be translated as existence and non-existence; the crucial point here is that clinging to views is an obstacle to enlightenment, which involves the complete letting go of all views or beliefs.)

Dhammapada Reflection #3

Verses 6, 7 & 8:

There are those that do not realize
That one day we must all die.
But those that do realize this
Settle their quarrels.

Just as a storm throws down a weak tree,

So does Mara overpower the one who lives
For the pursuit of pleasures,
Who is uncontrolled in senses,
Immoderate in eating, indolent, and dissipated.

Just as a storm cannot prevail

Against a rocky mountain,
So Mara can never overpower the one
Who lives meditating on the impurities,
Who is controlled in his senses,
Moderate in eating, and filled
With faith and earnest effort.

 We humans are an ingenious lot. We can cure many fatal diseases, produce amazing works of art, and we can even walk in space. And yet, we can also be pretty foolish, too. We endanger our health with intoxicants, argue & inflict violence on each other, and live as if immortal, avoiding the fact of our impending demise. Such ways of living do immense damage both physically & psychologically, but Buddha suggests that we can go beyond these destructive behaviour patterns.

 A common exercise encouraged in Buddhism is to reflect on our mortality. We are mortal beings; not only do these bodies age & die, but also our minds do likewise. Indeed, it’s the nature of the human mind to change moment-to-moment in the constant flow of thoughts & feelings referred to as the stream of consciousness. Based in this fact, Buddha suggests that if we are to take any part of us to be a ‘self,’ it should be the body rather than the mind, for although the body is constantly changing, the mind morphs from one state to another much faster; it is in constant flux. Watch it for five minutes and you will see the truth of this.

Ultimately, though, Buddha advises us not to take any part of us as constituting a self, as both mind & body can be seen to be natural processes largely out of our control. Moreover, we can see that these human forms are ephemeral if we take the time to actually observe the human condition with discernment. One day, you will cease to be, and when the last day arrives, do you want to live with regret in your heart, having lived in states of animosity & conflict? Is this how you wish to be remembered: as someone who created much pain & suffering? Buddha promotes the opposite to this, for not only will you help create a better world by settling disputes fairly & swiftly, but you’ll be remembered more favourably as well.

 Mara is the Buddhist figure that represents death & ignorance; in other words, he is the antithesis of Buddha. Rather than selfless, he is selfish, rather than egoless, he is egotistic, and rather than compassionate, he is unsympathetic. Similarly, Mara personifies those aspects of ourselves that are pleasure-seeking, sense-gratifying & lazy. If we give in to these negative traits, we will be unable to realize the fruits of the Buddhist life, for we will live as followers of Mara and not Buddha. This is how Mara overpowers us, as spoken of in verse 7 of the Dhammapada quoted above. Living in such negative ways, we will surely live in conflict with others, over-competing with them, causing arguments & hatred. In giving in to these harmful modes of behaviour we are “weak trees,” as Buddha puts it, easily subject to further suffering based upon the fake identities we foolishly live from.

 Those that are heedful of Buddha’s teachings are compared to a “rocky mountain” beyond the destructive powers of any storm. He encourages us to meditate on “the impurities” which is a practice intended to reveal the real nature of our bodies. The focus of such reflection is such aspects of the body as bones, organs, membranes, fat, mucus & faeces, not to mention other distasteful stuff. Controlling our senses by not overindulging in sensual activities will also help in keeping Mara at bay. Conviction & energy with regards to being moral & meditative will give rise to the wisdom that transcends suffering & the delusion of self.

 Living from the realization of the impermanent nature of these body-minds can lead to a more positive attitude towards life, not wasting so much effort on conflictive behaviours. We’re more inclined to being tolerant & forgiving with each other if we recognize that we’re all in the same boat called ‘Impermanence’ that will disembark at the port named ‘Death.’ Being controlled in our actions and seeing the body as it truly is can lead to a letting go of sense-indulgent & self-centred activity, thus opening us up to the Dharma (the-way-things-are). All this can not only make life more tolerable for us all, but also lead to that realization of selflessness that Buddha called ‘nirvana.’

 The Dhammapada ('Verses of Dharma' or 'Path of Dharma') is an ancient Buddhist text that is said to contain some of Buddha's teachings in poetic form. The first chapter is called Yamakavagga, 'Chapter of Pairs,' and the above three verses are from this part of the book.

Buddha on Self-View

"Blessed One, how does self-view come about?"

"There is the case, monk, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dharma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dharma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes mental-formations to be the self, or the self as possessing mental-formations, or mental-formations as in the self, or the self as in mental-formations. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"This, monk, is how self-view comes about."

Saying, "Very good, Blessed One," the monk delighted & approved of the Blessed One's words and then asked him a further question:  "Blessed One, how does self-view no longer come about?"

"There is the case, monk, where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dharma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dharma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He does not assume feeling to be the self or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He does not assume perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He does not assume mental-formations to be the self, or the self as possessing mental-formations, or mental-formations as in the self, or the self as in mental-formations. He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"This, monk, is how self-view no longer comes about."

(Buddha from the Maha-punnama Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 109, Tipitaka. Notes: ‘Self-identity view’ (sakkaya-ditthi) is a barrier to awakening to our true nature; ‘noble ones’ indicates enlightened beings; Dharma here indicates both understanding & application of Buddhist teachings.)

Buddha on the Two Kinds of Mind

"Suppose there were a pool of water — sullied, turbid, and muddy. A man with good eyesight standing there on the bank would not see shells, gravel, and pebbles, or shoals of fish swimming about and resting. Why is that? It is because of the sullied nature of the water. In the same way, that a monk with a sullied mind would know his own benefit, the benefit of others, the benefit of both; that he would realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision: Such a thing is impossible. Why is that? It is because of the sullied nature of his mind."

"Suppose there were a pool of water — clear, limpid, and unsullied. A man with good eyesight standing there on the bank would see shells, gravel, & pebbles, and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting. Why is that? It is because of the unsullied nature of the water. In the same way, that a monk with an unsullied mind would know his own benefit, the benefit of others, the benefit of both; that he would realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision: Such a thing is possible. Why is that? It is because of the unsullied nature of his mind."

 (Buddha, Udakarahaka Suttas, Anguttara Nikaya 1.45-46, Tipitaka)

A Buddhist Reflection on Consciousness

“From the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-and-form.”
(Venerable Sariputta, Nalakalapiyo Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 12:67, Tipitaka)

 Sometimes, modern spiritual teachers claim that consciousness is it, that is to say that our true identity that lies behind all experience is consciousness, and that this is somehow eternal and separate from the world. In a world where traditional ideas of God & soul are falling at the sword of empirical science, times can seem rather bleak. What’s the point in it all if there’s no God to welcome our eternal souls into heaven? We work hard, try to be good partners, parents, children, friends, neighbors, and model citizens, only for it all to fade to dust upon our demise. Eternal life is a comforting idea, but if science has squeezed God & soul out of existence, what’s left to be never-ending?

 Well, consciousness is often seen as the modern equivalent of a soul, as it is lies behind the experience of the body, the personality, memories, thoughts, emptions and dreams, but is somehow apart from them; a nebulous ‘ground of being’ or canvas upon which these other aspects of self are painted. This fits in quite well with some traditional, albeit mystical, interpretations of the self (often written as Self to emphasis its apparent ‘cosmic’ nature). Known as Atman in Sanskrit, this Self is said to be identical with Brahman, the prime being or entity from which the universe springs, summed up by its most famous proponent Adi Shankara (788–820), thus: “Brahman alone is real, the world is not independently existent, and the individual Self is not different from Brahman.” This form of Hindu philosophy is known as Advaita, ‘Not-two’ or ‘Non-dualism.’ These ideas are often identified with forms of theistic mysticism found in Christianity, Islam and other religions, as well as some forms of Buddhist philosophy.

 So, is this Self identical to ‘pure consciousness’ as is often claimed? Well, there are different ways to answer this question. We could form an opinion about it based on our biases and belief systems, but this would simply be a set of thoughts arising in this consciousness, wouldn’t it? It isn’t actually investigating the question to test its validity, but merely formulating concepts around it and then identifying with them, reacting to alternative views with attachment and aversion. This won’t do. Alternatively, we might actually look into experience and examine it to see whether this idea that consciousness is the true Self is true or not. Looking at present experience, what is accompanying consciousness? In other words, what is it conscious of? Consciousness can be aware of sights, sounds and tactile sensations; smells, tastes and mental stuff may be the focus of consciousness also. Whatever consciousness is conscious of, however, it’s always conscious of something, isn’t it? Consciousness is never conscious of itself, or of nothing. Try this little experiment:

 Observe an object that is in front of you, noting its size, shape, colour, and features. Note that consciousness of the object is present; otherwise there’d be no awareness of anything at all, would there? Now, turn attention around and try to observe consciousness in the same way as above, noting its size, shape, colour, and features. Can this be done? What size is consciousness? What shape is it and what colours? Such questions cannot be answered, can they? In fact, upon reflection they seem rather ridiculous – of course consciousness cannot grasp itself. There’s nothing to be grasped!

 The above experiment can be undertaken with other faculties than vision; hearing, smelling, tasting, touching & thinking all work out the same. Consciousness can be conscious of something else, but it cannot be conscious of itself. This applies to mental as well as physical phenomena, with emotions, thoughts, memories, imagination & dreams experienced in conjunction with consciousness. Objects and consciousness are interdependent; we cannot have one without the other. In Buddhism, the main way to classify consciousness reflects this interconnectedness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, skin-consciousness & mind-consciousness. But, there’s no consciousness-consciousness.

 In the quote at the top of this article, it is stated that when consciousness ends so does “name-and-form,” and vice versa. Here, name-and-form indicates the totality of our experience. ‘Name’ indicates mental phenomena and ‘form’ points to physical phenomena. A rough equivalent to ‘name-and-form is the modern term psycho-physical. What this statement is saying, then, is that without psycho-physical stimuli, there is no consciousness. Buddhism teaches that consciousness is a dependent faculty or process. Indeed, the human condition is generally described by Buddha as a set of interdependent processes as opposed to a being in a universe. The claim of Buddhism is that if we practice mindfulness & meditation to their conclusion this truth can be experienced.

 So, what is Buddha’s response to those claims that consciousness or Self is the ultimate truth of our being? Essentially it is to deny it, but rather than through belief or dogma, it is to actually look & see that this claim about consciousness is in error. Consciousness is a natural process which is best described using the three characteristics of existence as taught by Buddha: it is impermanent (anicca), imperfect (dukkha) & impersonal (anatta). Moreover, as a natural process, consciousness is the universe being aware of itself through this human form. There’s nobody separate & eternal hiding somewhere in this body, nor is there a cosmic consciousness that contains experience; consciousness arises in the reaction between mind (‘name’) & world (‘form’). And if perfectly understood, release from suffering is achieved, which is nirvana, the ‘blowing-out’ of the delusion of a self.

Buddha on Attentiveness & Awakening

Subhuti asked, “How can the practitioner who wishes to help all beings find enlightenment awaken the complete and perfect wisdom?”

Buddha said, “This most subtle awakening comes about through moment-to-moment attentiveness. By way of attentiveness, there is attainment to the ways in which things manifest, such as form and consciousness. The practitioner awakens to perfect wisdom by becoming blissfully free from obsessions with habits, names, sense experiences, personal feelings, and with dread of dying and all despair that goes with it.

“Free to experience all the rising of manifestation and its interdependent functioning without believing it to be the final reality, the practitioner avoids two fundamental errors – that this relative world is rooted on any solid foundation, and the opposite error that the manifest forms we see are mere illusions without proper physical and moral implications for every single mind-flow.”

 (Buddha, Prajnaparamita)

Buddha on Fame & Fortune

"A fatal thing, monks, are gains, favors and fame, a bitter, harsh impediment to the attainment of the unsurpassed freedom from bondage. It is just like a beetle, feeding on dung, full of dung, gorged with dung, standing before a great dung-hill, who might despise other beetles, saying: 'I am a dung-eater, full of dung, gorged with dung, and before me is this great dung-hill!'

 "In the same way, monks, if some monk is overwhelmed with gains, favors and fame so that his head is turned, so, having risen early and taken his robe and bowl and gone for alms to the village or market town, he eats his fill, gets invited again for next day, and has a full bowl. Then he goes to the monks' park, and boasts in the midst of the assembled monks: 'I have had a good meal, and I am invited again for tomorrow. My bowl is full. I have got a robe, alms, lodgings and medical requisites. But these other monks have little merit and little influence; they do not get such requisites.' Thus this monk, who is so overwhelmed with gains, favors and fame that his head is turned, despises other well-behaved monks. But this will bring harm and sorrow to that wretched man for many a long day. That shows you, monks, how disastrous gains, favors and fame are, what a bitter, harsh impediment to the attainment of the unsurpassed freedom from bondage. Therefore monks, you should train yourselves thus: 'Whatever gains, favors and fame may come our way we will reject, lest it turn our heads.' So, monks, you should train yourselves."

 (Pilhika Sutta, ‘Dung-Beetle Discourse’. Note: Although Buddha is addressing monks in this discourse, this teaching equally applies to anyone else seeking nirvana, or release from suffering.)

Does a Dog Have Buddha-Nature?

“Does a dog have Buddha-nature?”

“No.”

 Being a dog lover and having had three dogs over the years, one of which still lives, the above dialogue involving Zen master Zhaozhou* seems really important. Interacting with dogs, looking into their eyes, doesn’t it seem obvious that Zhouzhou’s answer must be wrong? After all, it’s a basic tenet of Buddhism that all sentient beings have the capacity to realize nirvana. In other words, they all possess buddha-nature. And then there’s that look in my dog’s eyes; a look of indicating a certain level of insight, an ability to understand what passes between us. It is a mutual, inherent knowingness.

 Of course, Zhaozhou’s ‘No’ is a kind of Zen riddle used to bypass logical thought processes and achieve satori, or awakening to buddha-nature. If we take him literally, not only does this ‘No’ deny a basic Buddhist teaching, but it also contradicts our own intuition when encountering other sentient creatures such as dogs. It could be, “Does a chimpanzee have buddha-nature?” or “Does a frog have buddha-nature?” Whatever the sentient being involved, however, surely the correct response should be a resounding, “Yes.”

 “Does a dog have Buddha-nature?”

“Yes.”

 A less well-known dialogue involving Zhaozhou revolved around the same question, but on this occasion the master responded positively. Now, this answer fits with both Buddhist teachings and that direct intuition referred to above. However, as a koan it probably wouldn’t work as well as there is nothing to get stuck into and work with. When Zhaozhou answers, “Yes,” the intellect isn’t challenged and neither is intuition. Everything’s as it should be and therefore the status quo is not overturned, making the likelihood of an experience of satori less possible.

 The ‘Yes’ and the ‘No’ taken together paint a fuller picture for us to peruse. Logically-speaking, dogs with all other sentient beings possess buddha-nature, so the ‘Yes’ covers this. The ‘No’ serves the purpose of going beyond mere intellectual understanding of doctrines however and calls us to experience buddha-nature for ourselves. ‘Yes-No’ acknowledges both that my dog has the potential for satori, whilst leading me to experience it for myself. I can rest in awakening knowing that my dog is already saved from suffering as he has buddha-nature too. Maybe he sees it, maybe not, but it lies at the core of who he is forever.

“Does a dog have Buddha-nature?”

“Yes-No.”

 *Note: Zhaozhou Congshen (778–897) is one of China’s most famous and revered Zen masters. The dog koan, also known as the Mu koan, Mu being the Japanese version of ‘No’ in this context, is the most famous of all koans, often given to Zen students to inspire their initial awakening into the truth of Buddhism.

Buddha on Assuming a Self

"To what extent, Ananda, does one assume when assuming a self? Assuming feeling to be the self, one assumes that 'Feeling is my self' or 'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious to feeling' or 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious to feeling, but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'

"Now, one who says, 'Feeling is my self,' should be addressed as follows: 'There are these three feelings, my friend — feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, and feelings of neither pleasure nor pain. Which of these three feelings do you assume to be the self?' At a moment when a feeling of pleasure is sensed, no feeling of pain or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pleasure is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pain is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of pain is sensed. Only a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed at that moment.

"Now, a feeling of pleasure is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. Having sensed a feeling of pleasure as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pleasure, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pain, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, 'my self' has perished.

"Thus he assumes, assuming in the immediate present a self inconstant, entangled in pleasure and pain, subject to arising and passing away, he who says, 'Feeling is my self.' Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume feeling to be the self.

"As for the person who says, 'Feeling is not the self: My self is oblivious to feeling,' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, where nothing whatsoever is sensed (experienced) at all, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

 "No, Blessed One."

 "Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious to feeling.'

"As for the person who says, 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious to feeling, but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, should feelings altogether and every way stop without remainder, then with feeling completely not existing, owing to the cessation of feeling, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

 "No, Blessed One."

 "Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious to feeling, but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'

"Now, Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the self, nor the self as oblivious to feeling, nor that 'My self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' then, not assuming in this way, he is not sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world. Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'”

(Excerpted from the Maha-nidana Sutta, Digha Nikaya 15, Tipitaka. Note: Ananda was Buddha’s cousin, personal attendant & a monk who realized nirvana himself after Buddha passed away; Buddha often referred to monks in his discourses as it was monks that he was addressing, but the above teaching applies to nuns & laity also.)

Buddha on Enlightenment & Emptiness

“Subhuti, this is how those who have entered well into the way of the bodhisattva must think to themselves as they feel the wish to achieve enlightenment:

 I will bring to nirvana the total amount of living beings, every single one numbered among the ranks of living kind: those who were born from eggs, those who were born from a womb, those who were born through warmth and moisture, those who were born miraculously, those who have a physical form, those with none, those with conceptions, those with none, and those with neither conceptions nor no conceptions. However many living beings there are, in whatever realms there may be, anyone at all labelled with the name of ‘living being,’ all these will I bring to total nirvana, to the sphere beyond all grief, where none of the parts of the suffering person are left at all. Yet even if I do manage to bring this limitless number of living beings to total nirvana, there will be no living being at all who was brought to their total nirvana.

 Why is this so? Because, Subhuti, if a bodhisattva were to slip into conceiving of someone as a living being, then we could never call them a bodhisattva."

 Notes: The above is Chapter Six of the Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, or ‘Diamond Cutter Perfection of Wisdom Discourse’). Subhuti was a senior monastic disciple of Buddha; a bodhisattva (‘being-of-enlightenment’) vows to lead all sentient beings to enlightenment, and is the highest mode of existence for a Buddhist.

Being Buddhist, Being Kind

“Whatever kinds of worldly merit there are, all are not worth one sixteenth part of the heart-deliverance of loving-kindness; in shining and beaming and radiance the heart-deliverance of loving-kindness far excels them.”
(Buddha, Itivuttaka, Sutta 27, Tipitaka)

What is it to be Buddhist? To meditate? To chant? To read Buddhist books? To be generous? To be compassionate? To be kind? To be wise? No doubt a case can be made for all of these and more to be part of what makes a Buddhist. But, when we look at our behaviour as Buddhists, do we actually fit the bill? A Buddhist (by definition) is someone who tries to put Buddha’s teachings into practice in their lives. Simply paying lip service to Buddha & his teachings but without living them isn’t really being Buddhist, is it? It’s acting, playing out a role, a character in a movie called ‘Life.’ Thing is, if this is the limit of our being Buddhist, isn’t it just another form of identification, an aspect of the ego? He’s Muslim, she’s atheist, and I’m Buddhist; it’s what makes me special. Really?

Does being Buddhist make us special when compared to others? Well, surely no more or less special than anyone else! You see, merely being Buddhist through birth or allegiance doesn’t make us special among humans because we’re essentially the same; we are born, we live and we die; and in our lives we all experience suffering (dukkha). Can we say Buddhist suffering is more special than other kinds of suffering? Of course not! Can we say that identifying with being Buddhist as opposed to Christian or Jewish is a special kind of identification? How can it be? Suffering is suffering, whether it be a Buddhist’s or a Hindu’s, and identification is identification, whether it be Buddhist or Sikh.

So, what are the Buddha’s teachings that we should put into practice so that we might be truly Buddhist? Well, this isn’t as easy a question to answer as at first it might seem. For, what version of those teachings are we to follow? Zen, Theravada, Vajrayana, Pure Land, Nichiren, Shingon, Tendai, Huayan, Madhyamaka, Yogacara, or Navayana? And these are just some of the main ones! Moreover, even within these various traditions and philosophies there are different teachings and practices which are not followed by all. Going back to the list mentioned at the top of this article, can we say that someone fails to be Buddhist if they don’t meditate or read Buddhist books, for example? Surely not; there’s something more basic to being Buddhist than such specifics isn’t there?

Looking at Buddhists and humanity at large can help us to see what’s needed by recognizing what’s missing. Returning to that universal truth of dukkha (stress or suffering), we can certainly see what people that are in pain need more of: kindness. Buddha promoted a quality of mind called metta, often translated as loving-kindness, although goodwill is a decent enough English equivalent too. Yes, meditation and chanting have their place, as do the other practices already mentioned, but not all of us can sit watching the mind or recite ancient formulas. But what we can do is be kind. We can be kind to our partners, our families, our neighbours, our work colleagues, strangers and acquaintances alike.

You may argue that though being kind is all very laudable, it doesn’t sound particularly Buddhist. And I’d agree with this, because to be truly Buddhist is to be truly human. It isn’t a label or affiliation that makes us Buddhist, but being true to our human condition, and recognizing the same in others, changing our behaviour towards them so that they suffer just a little bit less. A kind word, a smile, a reassuring gesture; all such deeds are forms of metta in action, and make us more like Buddha, whether we identify with him and his teachings or not. Moreover, what’s the point in claiming to be Buddhist, spouting Buddhist philosophy if our actions lack the most basic level of goodwill? In reality, we are putting Buddhism in a bad light, waffling about all kinds of wise ideas and theories but falling short of these lofty notions in the way we conduct ourselves.

So, in answer to the query that opened this article, what it is to be Buddhist, the most basic answer is simply to be kind. Be kind to others and be kind to ourselves. Be kind to humans and animals, for we all have the capacity to suffer, but also the ability to alleviate some of that suffering. Be patient, and don’t listen to gossip nor spread it; forgive as much as you can and don’t wish others harm; see that all wish for happiness and safety – just as you do. If we can do this, then we can claim to be Buddhist, not only in our convictions but also in our actions, which is surely where the essence of being Buddhist is found. And, in doing this, we move closer to all beings, human or otherwise, Buddhist or otherwise. Being Buddhist means being kind.

Karaniya Metta Sutta

This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful,
Not proud and demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove,
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be,
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short, or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to be born,
May all beings be at ease.
Let none deceive another
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
ShouldThis is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful,
Not proud and demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove,
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be,
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short, or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to be born,
May all beings be at ease.
Let none deceive another
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
one cherish all living beings,
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upwards to the skies
And downwards to the depths,
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down,
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed vews,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense-desires,
Is not born again into this world.

The Karaniya Metta Sutta - 'The Loving-Kindness To Be Cultivated Sermon' - is one of the most beloved of Buddhist sutras. It is presented here for our contemplation, for in its short but succinct form, we have a priceless guide to becoming better beings. In the upcoming months, a series of reflections on the sutra will appear on this blog. The translation presented here is from the Western Forest Sangha Chanting Book, which can be downloaded from the following address: Abhayagiri Buddhist Monastery

Buddha on Self & Not-Self

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?" When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. "Then is there no self?" A second time, the Blessed One was silent. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Venerable Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, Blessed One, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, Blessed One."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

(Ananda Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 44:10, Tipitaka. Notes: ‘Blessed One’ & 'Venerable Gotama' refer to the Buddha; eternalism is the view that there is an eternal, unchanging self; annihilationism is the view that death is the annihilation of self. Buddha’s teaching of anatta (not-self) states that there is no self in the first place to cease existing. This is not to be understood as a doctrine or philosophy, but to be experienced by the meditative mind.)