Wu wei (無為, 无为, wúwéi) is a concept from ancient pre-Buddhist Chinese philosophy that literally means "not-acting" or "non-doing," variously interpreted and translated as "noninterference," "action-lessness," "inaction," or "effortless action" [1, 2].
In Taoism, it denotes the nature of Tao, meaning that while Tao (the Way, Path, or flow of nature, acting in accordance with the natural course of things), is the source of all existence and the manifestation of all phenomena, its intrinsic formless essence is that it acts or moves in a silent, invisible, ineffable, often-unnoticed manner that may even seem motionless and effortless [3, 4, 5, 6, 7].
It's all a matter of seeing the Suchness!
Accordingly, Taoists (and subsequently Zen Buddhist practitioners) aspire to live their lives in alignment with such a harmonious state of free flowing and unforced activity. In a political context, it also refers to an ideal form or principle of spontaneous and non-aggressive form of governing [8]. More
Tathātā (Sanskrit तथाता, Pali tathatā) is a Buddhist term variously translated as "Suchness," "Thusness," "True Thusness," or "True Suchness," referring to the Ultimate Reality, the intrinsic and essential nature of all existence, free of dualistic thinking, conceptualization, subject–object distinctions [1].
It is formless, uncreated, eternal, perfect, unchanging, indestructible, and is the true nature of all phenomena. It represents the genuine reality of existence, which transcends physical forms, physical senses, and intellectual comprehension, indicating a profound insight into the nature of things as they truly are [2, 3, 4].
Tathātā has a large number of synonyms found in different Buddhist schools, traditions, and scriptures, such as:
(KODEN OBSCURE) May 26, 2026: Zen Wisdom: Been struggling to break a bad habit for years and feel like it's losing battle using willpower?
Many of us are fighting a war we were never meant to wage. In this video, we explore a profound piece of wisdom from the Japanese monastic tradition: Zen monks never fight their habits.
Instead of using force, they use intelligent design. Discover the five unusual and quiet methods used in Zen monasteries to redirect energy, change environments, design time, and observe urges without judgment.
Learn why treating our mind with patience rather than going to war with it is the ultimate secret to lasting freedom. What this video covers:
Why willpower almost always fails in the long run
The "replacement gesture" and how to redirect energy
How breaking the spatial anchor of a room can instantly stop an urge
The danger of "empty time" and how monks structure their day
Why harsh self-judgment actually feeds our bad habits.
CHAPTERS
0:00 The monk who couldn't break a habit
1:29 The secret monastic view of habits
3:01 Method 1: The replacement gesture
4:10 Method 2: Breaking the spatial anchor
5:29 Method 3: Eliminating undesigned time
6:50 Method 4: The practice of conscious permission
8:15 Method 5: Escaping the loop of self-judgment
9:37 - Why fighting keeps the habit alive
10:29 - Wrestling the shadow (a Zen metaphor)
11:37 - How to finally become free.
Make sure to subscribe for more insights on Eastern philosophy, mindfulness, and personal mastery. #zenwisdom #breakbadhabits #japanesephilosophy #mindfulness #selfimprovement how to break bad habits, Japanese philosophy, Zen monk teachings, habit replacement, stop using willpower, Zen monastery secrets, overcome bad habits, personal growth, self improvement, mindfulness practices, replace bad habits, Zen habits, Eastern philosophy, mental health, how to stop overthinking, discipline, atomic habits, dopamine detox, Buddhist philosophy, master the mind
[The Pali/Sanskrit word sarana actually means "Going for GUIDANCE," NOT "going for refuge," which is a bad English translation. Early Buddhist reformer Col. Henry Steel Olcott tried to straighten out this misunderstanding more than a century ago in The Buddhist Catechism (sacred-texts.com).
But people still misunderstand and scholar mindlessly repeat the mistake without ever taking a closer look at the word and the potential confusion they are causing.
There is only one real "refuge" in the phenomenal universe, and the historical Buddha called that nirvana. Nirvana is the further shore, the real place of safety beyond rebirth. Everything in samsara is beset by disappointments and dangers on all sides.
Aside from nirvana, the Buddha, the Dharma, and the [Enlightened] Sangha are precious jewels we can resort to for GUIDANCE on the path, for encouragement, inspiration, and clarification.
We ourselves must make the effort. No one saves us but ourselves. No one can, and no one may. Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha merely POINT the way.]
Going for Guidance?
Saranamor "guidance," Col. Olcott explains: "This word has been hitherto very inappropriately and erroneously rendered 'refuge' by European Pali scholars and thoughtlessly so accepted by native Pali scholars," Wijesinha Mudaliyar writes to him to point out.
Neither Pali etymology nor Buddhist philosophy justifies the translation. "Refuge," in the sense of a fleeing back or a place of shelter, is quite foreign to true Buddhism, which insists on every person working out one's own emancipation [liberation, salvation, enlightenment].
The root Sṛ in Sanskrit (sara in Pali) means to move, to go, so that saranam would denote a moving, or one or that which goes before or with another—a Guide or Helper.
I construe the passage thus: Gacchāmi, "I go," Buddham, "to the Buddha," Sâranam, "as my Guide."
The translation of the Ti-saraṇa as the "Three Refuges" has given rise to much misapprehension and has been made by anti-Buddhists a fertile pretext for taunting Buddhists with the absurdity of taking refuge in non-entities and believing in unrealities.
The term "refuge" is more applicable to Nirvaṇa, of which saranam is a synonym.
The [Abbot] Sumangala also calls my attention to the fact that the Pali root sara has the secondary meaning of killing, or that which destroys.
Buddham saranam gacchami [Dhammam saranam gacchami, Sangham saranam gacchami] might thus be rendered "I go to the Buddha, the Doctrine, and the [Noble] Order as the destroyers of my fears—the first by his teaching, the second by its axiomatic truth, the third by their various [enlightened] examples and precepts." Source
USC is the University of Southern California, a wealthy private college that usually reserves its brutality for the football field and the sworn enemy of neighboring public UCLA, the University of California at Los Angeles (which doesn't ultimately exist as we were recently able to show).
Tick-borne allergy to red meat: alpha-gal syndrome (AGS): A mammalian meat allergy (MMA) [1] is an acquired allergy to the epitope of the carbohydrate molecule galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose ("alpha-gal") [2]. Reactions can be life-threatening and typically either begin rapidly after exposure from intravenous therapy or 2–8 hours after ingesting foods and medicines. Reactions can also occur from skin contact and environmental exposures [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. AGS results from tick bites and, possibly, bites from other parasites [8, 9, 10]. Alpha-gal is present in all foods and ingredients made from slaughtered beef (cow), pork (pig), lamb (sheep), venison (deer), rabbit (rodent), and other mammal sources, including gelatin and milk.
May 2026 is a special occasion because Prince Siddhartha Gautama (the Bodhisattva) was born on the "Full Moon Day in May," and it's also the day he later became enlightened, and the same day he reclined into final nirvana. This is, therefore, "Buddhist Christmas" but as a thrice blessed day, it is even more significant. This year, because it has two full moons (according to the Gregorian Calendar forced on us), gives us two opportunities to practice and celebrate. Wisdom Quarterly is teaching at the Eight PreceptFasting Day at the Sri Lankan North Hollywood Temple (Sarathchandra Vihara) by day and attending a grand ceremony representing all Buddhist countries in Los Angeles at the Thai Theravada monastery Dhammakaya in Azusa. Both events are free and open to all.
It’s time for our newest installment on Paṭṭhāna — the Buddha’s hyper-precise in-depth teachings on cause and effect. For those not yet up to speed on this series, I recommend reading my previous posts. For the sake of today’s installment, the one on different types of “support” is relevant.
Those who have read the previous one on the three different types of support will remember that one of those three is sahajata paccaya — the condition by which things must always arise at the same time.
Paccaya is the Pali word for “cause” or “condition.” Jati is the Pali word for “birth.” Saha means “same” — so sahajata means “born at the same time.”
But Patthana goes further. It also offers us purejata paccaya and pacchajata paccaya. The jata part still means “born,” while pure is Pali for “before,” and paccha is Pali for “after” — so here we have “born before” and “born after” conditions.
Of these two, purejata paccaya, or “born-before condition,” is intuitively far easier to understand. This is a condition whereby the cause arises before the effect. We can think of countless examples in nature where this condition holds:
a mother must always be born before her child,
the fruit tree must always grow before the fruit,
the river must exist before the fish come and swim in it.
In Abhidhamma terms, an example of this condition would be the various types of sensitive materiality that must already exist in order to support the consciousness that arises dependent on them. For example, eye-sensitive materiality must already exist in order for eye-consciousness to arise.
Another example occurs with some objects of attention. For example, eye-consciousness cannot arise without a visual object to cognize. So the visual object, which will be some kind of light or color, needs to already be existing and well established in order for eye-consciousness to arise. The cause comes first; the result comes after.
Pacchajata paccaya, however, is not as intuitive. Here we have the result arising first and the cause coming later. What?! Backwards [retro-] causality? Really? Well, no, not quite. It’s not really as mystical as it might sound.
Pacchajata paccaya is actually a condition whereby something that arises later is the cause for something that arose earlier to keep on existing. For example, there’s rain that falls after a tree already exists and helps keep that tree alive. Another example would be how children may at times give their otherwise exhausted parents a reason to keep on living, or indeed how students might give their weary teacher a reason to keep on teaching. ;-)
In Abhidhamma terms, we see that the consciousness and mental factors support materiality to keep on existing, even though the materiality existed first and the consciousness and mental factors came along later.
Why time has a direction
The truly powerful thing about these two conditions is that they give a direction to time.
Time, at least in the way we usually think about it, is just a concept. It is something the mind makes up to measure change.
This is easy to understand by choosing any unit of time and thinking about how it is defined.
One year = the Earth goes round our Sun;
One day = the Earth completes a full rotation on its axis;
One second = the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine energy levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. (Yes, that really is how it came to be defined).
Time is always measured in terms of an amount of change that has happened in that period. Change is what is really happening. Time is the mind’s overlay in order to measure and make sense of the change.
But if time is just a concept, does that mean that we can just choose to freeze or go back or forwards in time? Well, no, because what purejata paccaya and pacchajata paccaya tell us is that some things must always happen first and other things must always happen after.
The flow of change has a direction. It doesn’t just seem to have a direction on a conceptual level. The directionality of time is hard-baked into the building blocks of reality.
So here we have two unassuming conditions having a profound effect on our reality or at least on how we experience it. If reality itself unfolds directionally, what does that tell us about the nature of our own lives?
What things in our lives need to come first? What things must follow after in order to sustain us? Let me know in the comments how you see these two conditions quietly working in daily life and how they are shaping your Dhamma paths.
Death (marana) is death because it is immediately followed by rebirth; there is no space in between, as the Bardo is misunderstood to be, because it will not be another human rebirth next
At the instant of death, in that submoment, what was a human life is lost, the impersonal process of consciousness relinks and rearises according to karma in a new form. It is neither a new existence nor the same as the one before, and this is confusing. Identity clings. But just as it was impersonal before, it is impersonal still, and the process (patisandhi in samsara) rolls on. Samsara is the "continued wandering on" and its detailed process the Buddha made known in the Abhidhamma, how cittas (mind moments) and impuslions (javanas) produce their results (vipaka and phala), and a "being" (which is really always a becoming) is unaware and just carried on...
What is a "band"?* It's a lot like a Buddhist "SELF," a "UCLA" (the American college), or a Greek SHIP of Theseus. It has a name, from which it derives its stable identity, but does it really have anything else for long? It's an illusion.
To demonstrate: I went to a college called UCLA. It doesn't exist. It started as a campus near USC, which is close to the skyline of DTLA/Downtown Los Angeles.
Plant, baby, is there really a "manic" nirvana?
If anyone can grasp these few examples, such a person will understand why the Buddha taught that ultimately speaking, there is no self, no soul, no essence, no abiding consciousness that travels from life to life or stands still here now.
That's impossible to accept. So reject it. Of course there's a self (atta). It's writing right now, and another self is reading right now...in a conventional way of speaking. No one is saying there's not that.
That being the case, WHY would the historical Buddha ever say there wasn't a self? We have to consider that. What is the reason, what did he mean, was he serious?
How does "suffering" come to be? 12 links.
The answer is: It is the unexamined assumption of what this "self" is that keeps us from awakening, keeps us from enlightenment (bodhi), keeps us from liberation (vimutti, moksha). There is something, lots of "things" (dhammas, "phenomena"). Such things arise by a process the Buddha called Dependent Origination (Conditioned Co-Genesis, Mutual Interdependence, this-that-that-this). This is, so that comes to be; when this is not, that does not arise -- as if "this" is not really more than "that."
Understanding D.O. in one example: What is a "candleflame"? If we break it down, deconstruct it, we find that it is five things. Who cares? Well, it's important because in place of this "self" we all believe in and never question the existence of, the Buddha is going to teach us that what we have been failing to see and penetrate is this very principle of conditioned co-arising or D.O. Okay, then, what five things?
Where does suffering go?
There is (1) wax, (2) wick, (3) heat, (4) oxygen, and (5) a very mysterious process of combustion. (Add to the list or take away, it doesn't really matter for the example to sink in). When these five are in a functionally integrated arrangement, bam, candleflame! Where did it come from? When it goes out, where will it "go" -- east, west, north, south, hell, heaven, the sphere of nothingness, the ground, my neighbor Robby Joiner's yard never to be seen again like all my frisbees? No, the designation does not apply; it is not correct to say the candleflame "goes" here, there, or anywhere. We just say it goes "out." That is to say, when these [factors, conditions, limbs] are present, that [candleflame] arises. When they are not, it is not. Therefore, in a sense one can say that a "candleflame" does not really exist, which is to say it does not exist independent of those factors upon which it utterly depends.
A candleflame does not exist.
Yet, we don't think it is any of those factors. It really seems independent, a new thing that came into being or brought those things (causes and conditions) with it. When does it come into being? When does it manifest what we conventionally call its "being" (beingness) into existence? When the final element (aggregate) is added. Try it. Put together any four of the five elements. There won't be a candleflame. Now, add the fifth. Viola! "Candleflame" arises in the mind -- which is what these five aggregate processes look like. We think it arises in the world, but probably all that was there before is still there now, nothing actually having been added. And when it goes out, one or the other factors (limbs) upon which it depended has been exhausted or removed. Right? Try it. Can we say that, for example, the heat is the candleflame? No, because there's heat everywhere yet there are very few candleflames. Is it the wax? No, because there's a world of wax yet relatively few candleflames.... But when we add the final element, "candleflame" seems to jump into existence. And, of course, it does conventionally speaking. But ultimately speaking, it does no such thing. It doesn't really ever exist, in a manner of speaking. I'll make this point again and again until it clicks what's being said and what is not.
This "UCLA" that I say does not exist, isn't it right over there in Westwood? There sure is something called "UCLA" in Westwood right now. But what was born and originated near USC, other than the name or some transient traditions and a charter or photos, and what things came over from that first place that remain unchanged?
All of the faculty are different
All of the students are different
All of the curricula, books, desks...
In fact, let's imagine the first place burned down and was completely incinerated, so that nothing, not a brick, not a scrap of the original went from DTLA to the Westside, would we still call it "UCLA"? We sure would! Why? What we identify or imagine to be UCLA is moving from here to there.
In a century, will there be a "UCLA"? No, but there almost surely will be a college (university) called "UCLA." All the faculty, students, books, lesson plans, and ephemera will be different, but it'll still -- in a sense -- be good ol' UCLA, at least in our minds and on some plot of real estate somewhere in LA.
There is no ship
Is it the same ship or a different ship?
Aside from the example of an empty college, a figment of our consensus reality to call this this and that that, maybe the ancient Ship of Theseus example would better communicate this. A ship sets off for Greece but along the way has to change the sails then the oars then the floorboards then the wheel then, piece by piece, every single piece. Is it still the same ship that arrives in Greece?
Whaddya mean "there's no car?" It's right here!
The nice answer is that it neither is exactly the same ship, but we can't say that it's another. It is, of course, not the same, but to say it's different does violence to our language and what we mean, as Bhikkhu Bodhi pointed out in As It Is. The same with your car. You could take it into the mechanic over and over so many times that they change every single piece. Then is it still the same car? It's your car either way, but not a lick of it remains, not a single piece. But a paper somewhere at the DMV says it's yours, even with a new license plate and engine block number, paint job, glass, carpet, upholstery, gas, oil, screws, everything.
There is no oxcart
There is no such thing as an oxcart.
In the same way, in ancient times, an oxcart. What is it? It is, broadly speaking, five components fitted in a functionally operational way (wheel, axle, body, steering, ox). Add pieces to the definition or take them away, it doesn't matter. But five is easy. Whose oxcart is this? It belongs to Thad. Its wheels are broken. Change them. Axle is broken. Change it. The body is broken. Change it. The steering is shot. Change it. Ox is exhausted. Change it. Now, every part having been changed, what oxcart? That one. Whose oxcart is it? Thad's. Why? It's because in a conventional sense (by our agreement and his delusion) it has been his all along, even though it is completely different. He has no control over it really; he can't keep it from breaking apart. But we still call it his, and we seem to have no trouble identifying it even as every single part gets switched out.
This "SELF," what is it? It is five things (form, feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness). Whose is it? This one's mine. What do you call it? "Me." Sometimes "I." It's myself, I mean, my self. My soul. My ego. My personality. My atta (Sanskrit atman). My vessel into which I load my store of karma (deeds, doings, intentional acts, or all of my willed actions).
By "form" you mean this rapidly deteriorating arrangement of materiality composed of solidity, movement, cohesion, and temperature? That's the one! So this material form, this body (this temporary vessel or vehicle), is actually just Four Great Elements, which are not "elements" as such but rather qualities of materiality, in a sense quanta or quantities of it because all material particles (rupa kalapas) are actually composed of all four elements or dhatus (or maha bhuta) but in differing amounts, so that when solidity is in preponderance, it gets labelled "solid" but still has all of the other features to a lesser degree. This is "you"? No. It is my body, but I am not the body. The body changes, but "I" stay the same forever and ever, the eternal self, the unchanged soul, the essence or core of the ego (psyche), the invisible watcher, holder, and owner of all that stands.
Okay, these feelings, that's "you"? Yes, that's me. I'm the feeler. So you're not the feeling? Well, no, not exactly, but feeling-feeler, same thing. Okay, all of them? Which all? You are all pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings passing through? Yeah, sort of, I am the feeler.
All right then. These perceptions? Yes, I am the perceiver. And you are the perceptions passing through, too? Sure, okay, perception-perceiver, I am the all.
And these other mental formations, like these volitions, impulses, motives, intentions (cetanas)? Yes, I am the intender. And the intention? Intention-intender, same thing. I am the all, the owner, the doer, the knower, the experiencer, the controller or the one-who-thinks-he's-in-control.
Okay, and this consciousness? Yes, I am consciousness. All of them? "All"? "You" are eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind-consciousnesses? Uh, yes, I am consciousness. And all the consciousnesses passing through conscious experience? Uh, I guess.
"Self" as impersonal processes
Does anyone know why the Buddha called each of these heaps an "aggregate"? It's very important. It is because there are trillions of them, not one form, one feeling, one perception, one formation, one consciousness. At least with the oxcart, it seems like there is one (or more) wheels, axle, one body, one steerer, one ox, and the conglomeration of those forms one oxcart. But with "SELF," there are no such single items. There are aggregations (heaps of rupa kalapas) of material particles, countless numbers of them in every "material" thing, and that's just the body, the form, which has 32 main parts and lots of subsidiary parts, so many that one cannot find it tenable to consider one's "self" this body. So we cling to the other four mental formations as "self." (Yes, we call the fourth heap "mental formations" or sankaras, but the fact is that feelings, perceptions, and consciousnesses are all mental formations, too. The Buddha segregated them into these five for explanatory and insight purposes. As we develop liberating insight into these, we will clearly know-and-see that what we took to be MY feeling was just feeling being felt -- arising, turning, and passing away at all times, hurtling towards destruction, never standing still for even a submoment. The reason a feeling lasts is not because it arises and hangs around for a while then, realizing it's impermanent, it leaves. One feeling arises, turns, passes away, as another almost identical feeling arises, turns, passes away, in succession until this process dies out, at which time "the feeling" which was a heap of feelings passes to be replaced by another kind of feeling. The same is true of the other four aggregates. Science tells us this material body is nothing but a conglomeration of cells, which are molecules, which are atoms, which are quarks and strong-and-weak forces and thingies and whatnots, ever more subtle until they're not even material.
Add ingredients to the definition of "SELF" or take them away, it doesn't matter. The same is true. What we call "self" is not-self. It is impersonal, and radically impermanent, and ultimately disappointing, painful, stressful, incapable of ever fulfilling us.
*What is a "band"?
Meet the future legendary "Mr. Jimmy" [Sakurai] as he shreds on guitar for an adoring crowd
If ANY of this has made sense, let us deal with the problem at hand: What is a "band"? It's a group, an assemblage, an aggregate, a "heap" of four or five basic members. Whose band is it?
(Whoever owns the name, which is just about the only stable thing other than ownership rights of music catalog performed and/or written under that name).
So one day four guys and their manager became the New Yardbirds. And they got threatened with a lawsuit, so they became Lead Zeppelin. But Peter Grant, the manager and fifth member, said, "To avoid mispronunciation, let's call the band Led Zeppelin." All agreed. They played, recorded, became famous, and then the drummer had a son and died. End of the story. Led Zeppelin was over. But capitalism and greed being what they are, Led Zeppelin lived on. There was even a reunion of sorts, but they couldn't bring back the dead, so they did the next best thing: They brought in the next of kin, drummer John Bonham's son Jason. It was like having 3.5 of the original four members present. It worked!
It worked so well, that everyone but Jimmy Page or Robert Plant could have quit, and the behemoth could have gone on like the Who, Stones, Chicago, or any other massive rock act has done for years and years until not even a single member of the original band is touring! How is that possible?! Ship of Theseus. Oxcart.
Who am I? There is no me?
What're ya doin in my hole?!
In fact, there's an Early Buddhist or later Chinese Buddhist parable that may illustrate this even better: A man (let's say it's YOU) is walking and falls into a deep hole, at the bottom of which are two ghoulish demons arguing as they prepare some human stew from human limbs strewn all around their gloomy hole. Seeing you fall in, the angry one asks what the h*ll you're doing there and tears your arm off. And the other, just to p*ss off the first, grabs another arm from off the ground and attaches it to your body. It works! You move the fingers. These demonic ghouls have black magic powers. You're elated to get your arm back, which p*sses off the first, who then tears off your other arm. The other grabs another arms, attaches it to you. Again it works, you're elated, and it, being p*ssed off, tears off a leg, which is replaced, a torso with heart and head. Getting all five limbs torn off and others reattaches, you get the heck out of the hole. Who got out? Who went in. All five limbs are still down in the hole, but here "you" are running away. Is it you, is it not you, is it sort of you?
There is no UCLA?
"UCLA" can restart anywhere with anyone.
Is there one "UCLA," many UCLAs, no UCLA? Is this feeling the self, is that perception the self, is this consciousness what dies and is reborn -- or is it all an impersonal ("empty," devoid of self) process just rolling on? And that's all it's ever been? Ask Jason.
Because Jason must have asked all the remaining members of Led Zeppelin, Inc. to join him on tour. But for one reason or another (think ego, clashes, not wanting to ruin the profitable brand, and solo careers), they did not. So he did. Jason did. Jason went on tour.
Is there a Robert Plant? - Now and Zen
The O2 Arena show (called the Ahmet Ertegun Tribute Concert) was in 2007, and on Saturday night, Jason Bonham said he's been doing JBLZE about 16 years or so. That seems to be how long Jason and Co. ("JBLZE," Jason Bonham's Led Zeppelin Evening) have been at it. They don't need Page; they have "Mr. Jimmy" (Sakurai) on guitar, and he looks and plays more like Page did back then than Jimmy Page does now.
Anattā is not a joke or punchline. All things are impersonal and always have been. And so long as we do not realize it (or that they are impermanent and disappointing, too), we will cling. And by clinging, we will suffer. And the way to let go (and stop suffering) is to realize the True Nature of All Things.
THERE IS NO SELF (an-attā, not-atta): "not-self," egolessness, soullessness, the impersonal nature of all phenomena (particularly the Five Aggregates clung to as "self") is the final and most incomprehensible of the Three Universal Characteristics of All Existence (ti-lakkhana).
The anattā doctrine is unheard of throughout the universe, except that a supremely awakened buddha has made it known (or a nonteaching buddha has cultivated up to supreme realization) and thereby opens up an escape from the phenomenal world of endless rebirth and incomprehensible suffering.
This doctrine teaches that neither within body-and-mind (nama-rupa, the bodily and mental phenomena of existence) nor outside of them can there be found anything that in THE ULTIMATE SENSE able to be regarded as a self, soul, self-existing real ego-entity, or any other abiding essence or substance.
This is the central doctrine of Buddhism. Without understanding it, real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible.
It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine with which the entire structure of the Buddha's Teaching (Dhamma) stands or falls.
All of the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found or hinted at in other philosophical systems, doctrines, or religions. But the anattā-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by a buddha.
It is on account of this that the historical Buddha was known as the anattā-vādi, or "Teacher of Impersonality." [He was also called a karma-vadin for emphasizing personal actions and karmic results.]
Whoever has not penetrated the impersonal nature of all existence and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming PROCESS of arising, turning, and passing away of bodily-and-mental phenomena and that there is no separate (independent, self-standing) ego-entity in or outside of this process, that person will be unable to understand Buddhism.
That is, that person will be unable to understand the teaching of the Four "Noble" (Enlightening) Truths (sacca) in the correct light. One will instead think that it is:
one's soul, self, ego, or personality that experiences suffering (dukkha, disappointment, pain, distress),
one's personality that performs skillful and unskillful deeds (good and evil actions)
one's soul who will be reborn according to such actions (karma),
one's personality that will enter into some kind of everlasting heaven, sphere, place, or state the Buddha called "Nirvana" (Pali Nibbāna),
one's "self" that practices on the Enlightening (Noble) Eightfold Path.
So it is said in The Path of Purification (Vis.M. XVI):
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
