When don't get what we expect

No! We don't want to ever suffer! - Calm down, crybabies. Here's the solution: NIRVANA.

(Buddhism Podcast) Live with what we can't change? No, there's much to do beyond that

Accept what we cannot change? No

Why do we fall into the trap of our expectations? The Truth is much better.

Cry, Homer. But it's okay. It'll all be alright.

(Buddhism Podcast) When life, which is full of disappointment (dukkha), is not what we expected.

There are Four Ennobling Truths, four realizations that lead to enlightenment here and now and awakening in this very life, with spiritual liberation and freedom for all time. What are they?

1. This is disappointing, incapable of ever fulfilling us.
2. This is how pain/disappointment/suffering originates.
3. This is the cessation of all suffering (nirvana).
4. This is the Path to the cessation of all suffering.

• Craving, grasping, lust, longing, "thirst": taṇhā
• The Three Marks (Characteristics) of Existence
• Things keep changing, hurtling towards destruction
• The Eight Worldly Conditions: praise and blame...

Wait, remind me. What is "suffering"?

Many people misunderstand Buddhism because the word "suffering" comes up so much that it seems that's all there is -- depressing talk about pain. This is very misleading. Buddhism is ALL about bringing about the END of all suffering.

I'm not like this. I'm just having a bad day, k?

That is nirvana, attainable here and now, no having to wait till death, which is actually a lot late to be starting to do anything about all the suffering that awaits us for remaining ignorant and asleep. So since we don't suffer, we dismiss anything they Buddha said, thinking it doesn't apply to us. But do we suffer? Well, that depends on, What is "suffering"? The Buddha defines what he is calling suffering (dukkha):

Various sutras sum up what unpleasant things and experiences in countless rebirths we undergo. It is not just the pain that touches us in this life; the process rolls on and on in the "continued wandering on" of saṃsāra.

Oh, the Buddha found the end to all pain?

This process itself (the Five Aggregates clung to as self) is suffering, is unsatisfactory, is disappointing, is liable to great pain, is utterly incapable of ever fulfilling us. Rebirth is suffering (unsatisfactory, disappointing, painful, unfulfilling) as are growth (maturation), aging (slowly breaking down), illness, death, loss, sorrow, crying (lamentation), physical pains, grief, and despair.

Contact with unpleasant (hateful, unloved, unwanted, repulsive) things suffering, as are being separated from the pleasant (wished for, loved, wanted, attractive). Not getting what we want, getting what we don't want, never being satisfied with anything we get, always longing and craving for more...all of it is unsatisfactory, disappointing, painful, suffering.

Things we can control

US killer survives torture with slave philosophy

Stoic philosopher/pilot James Bond Stockdale

And it all comes back to a more fundamental disappointment beneath it all -- the Five Aggregates clung to as self: body (form); feelings (sensations), perceptions, formations, and consciousness clung to as "self."

Emphasis in Buddhism is NOT on belief. That's nearly useless and only preliminary. The emphasis is gnostic like the ancient Gnostics, for whom direct personal experience of the Truth is everything. Part of that is cultivating insight (vipassana, lit. "clear seeing") into the nature of this "suffering" along with the other two marks of existence.

List: Seven Stages of Insight

The process of craving, grasping, and clinging starts with sense-contact, part of the Five Aggregates clung to as self, and how this corruption, this misapprehension, this forming of wrong view, this distorted seeing can be overcome by progressive training of the heart/mind, culminating in progressive insight, which can be remembered as the Seven Stages of Insight.

This begins by moral restraint (virtuous conduct, sila), which makes meditation (the absorptions, jhanas) possible, which makes mindfulness into the four foundations (body, feelings, mind, and mind-objects) possible.

This brings us back to the basics, the foundational summary, of what we need to penetrate -- not memorize, recite, "believe," argue about), the Teaching of the Four Ennobling Truths. What's "noble" about them or about suffering? They are not noble in the English sense of the word. The Buddhist sense of noble is arya or Aryan, which means "enlightened" or "enlightening."

The list is not a formula but a very general outline of the reflections that bring about what the historical Buddha called "enlightenment" (bodhi, "awakening"). We would rather stay asleep and perchance dream a pleasant fantasy full of pleasure and sensual experiences, delights, happiness in all its forms, of which there are many.

But this dreaming is very prone to nightmares, for in pursuit of pleasure, we ill-conduct ourselves and those karmic deeds come to fruition and ripen in great suffering, unimaginable suffering. We already taste that now, when we would dream and be full of pleasure and happiness all the time or, at least, at will. But that doesn't happen. We can't make that happen. We think we can so, like a donkey after that carrot, which is just right there in front of us, we keep going, pulling a heavy load of a cart laden with more and more karma (all our actions).

Buddhist sutras, or discourses, show the broad meaning of "suffering," from the slightest agitation to the greatest agony, coming in three categories:

• dukkha-dukkha, aversion to physical pain – which includes physical and mental suffering, such as rebirth, aging, illness, dying, distress due to the undesirable.
• viparinama-dukkha, the frustration of disappearing happiness – which is the suffering of pleasurable, pleasant, and happy experiences changing to painful, unpleasant, and miserable ones when the causes and conditions that produced the pleasurable are exhausted or lost.
• sankhara-dukkha, the disappointment and unsatisfactoriness of transient, changing, impermanent "things" – the inability of [conditioned] things to give us constant, lasting pleasure and happiness.

So there is an END to all this suffering, now?

This includes a fundamental, inescapable unsatisfactoriness that pervades all things in and states of existence, all situations and future lives in any world (of which there are countless), any plane (of which there are 31), and any sphere (of which there are three), because all things all the time are incapable of fulfilling us and are always changing, hurtling towards destruction, and are ultimately impersonal, not ours, not under our absolute control.

At this level, the term dukkha, "suffering," indicates a lack of any lasting satisfaction, any ultimate fulfillment, any that things can ever measure up to our expectations. More

What is the point of all this talking about or even mentioning "suffering"? Yeah, yeah, we get it; we know we suffer, duh! Can't we just talk about nice things -- bliss, lights, expanded meditative states, magical powers, insights into all physical and mental phenomena, joy unending, nirvana-fication, quenching thirst, dousing the flames of greed, hatred, and smoldering delusion, stuff like that? Suffering is the problem that pleads for a final solution, a state and trait, a condition in need of a cure, an unbearable thing that we at some point have to deal with and bring to a final end.

Four truths to freedom

There's much to do to be free.

The first ennobling truth is the recognition that there is suffering, not because there is but because we don't even recognize it. We think we do. As soon as it pops up, we turn away, move on to something else, jump for distractions. We have next to no idea what it really is or what is causing it.

That is the second ennobling truth: What is causing it? The ROOT cause, the fundamental cause, the ultimate cause is? It is not craving (desire, wanting). It is ignorance (avijja), manifesting as wrong views (miccha-ditthi) and delusion (moha), confusion about reality.

The solution is? Awakening to the Truth, the ultimate truth (paramattha), enlightenment right now -- through realizing the causal links of Dependent Origination, the process by which this suffering is arising. Among those 12 links, of which ignorance is the ultimate cause, is one the Buddha singled as the one we can actually do something about right here and right now directly, and that is craving (tanha). Why do we crave? Ignorance, which is the same reason we have aversion and why we are deluded. The Buddha singles out craving to work on undoing the causes and conditions bringing about suffering. Why?

That is the third ennobling truth: What is not-suffering? Nirvana. Nirvana is the end of all suffering. How do we realize nirvana, directly perceive and experience it here and now?

That is the fourth ennobling truth: There is a Path to the end of suffering. What is it? It is outlined in general in the Ennobling Eightfold Path. However, to be more specific and less general, the Buddha spoke of 37 "things pertaining to enlightenment," the bodhipakkhiya-dhamma, for immediate development to know-and-see nirvana.

• Buddhism Podcast (videos); Dhr. Seven (text), Ashley Wells (ed.), Ananda (Dharma Buddhist Meditation), Wisdom Quarterly Wiki edit

If there's awareness, WHO is aware?

(Buddhism Podcast) "Who" is aware? A Buddhist teaching on no-self

• Skandha (khandha): The Five Aggregates clung to as self
• Then what is there? There is Dependent Origination
• 😃 "Not-self" (anatta) explained in plain English

How is this even a serious discussion?

Come on, Buddha, "no-self" is crazy, right?

Why even talk about this "crazy" teaching that couldn't possibly be (conventionally) true? Of course, "I" exist and "you," too! Just look at us! But, of course, what we see and think we see, that is not a real "self" -- not anything we produce, control, direct, own, or command. It's happening of its own; in an ultimate sense, it is impersonal -- even though it feels utterly personal. Because what am I if not this body, these feelings, these perceptions, these mental formations like will (motives, impulses, intentions), and this consciousness (which many sophisticated persons, particularly ancient Brahmins and modern Hindus, to say nothing of Christians, Muslims, Jains, and others) cling to that "thing" which we must really be when we figure out we are not this body or the other attendant mental phenomena. At least, at the core, I must be THE ONE WHO IS AWARE, the watcher, the knower, the decider, the doer. But this wrong view falls apart under careful, mindful, systematic attention with a cleansed and purified mind/heart. Otherwise, all that will be seen are the usual distortions and perversions of view. This Doctrine invites no one to blindly believe or parrot a Teaching, but to "come and see, investigate it."

• How can contradictory truths (such as conventional vs. ultimate) both be true? - They can't. Only the ultimate one is ultimately true. Be we don't live in ultimate truth. We live mired by conventions of language and assumptions about reality that are all wrong. For example, there is a very easy comparison to be maid thanks to the widespread teachings of physics. Question: Is this desk right here mostly dense or mostly empty space?
• Answer: Well, mostly dense, of course. That's why it serves as a desk.
• Okay, now go ask your physics professor the same question and listen to her tell you all about atoms and particles, sub-particles, quarks, muons, and whatnots, finer and more subtle components of matter.
• What can she say? I'll just beat my hand down on her desk during office hours to prove to that Egghead that, of course, a desk is solid!
• Yes, sure, see where that gets you. Once we understand that an "atom" (an indivisible, uncuttable, irreducible unit of mass) contains more empty space than anything tangible, we'll suddenly see what she's talking about and what science teachers in schools and professors in universities teach.
• So what, then what?
• Then it will both be true that this desk seems dense and solid -- because our hand can't go through it like it can the empty air -- and yet is not actually true at all. It seems true. It is conventionally true (insofar as it is useful to speak this way to one another to distinguish things like air and desks), but it is not ultimately true. Only what is ultimately true was ever actually true -- even as we walk about like ignorant monkeys never giving it a second though. Desk solid, air empty. Solid things are only relatively solid to less dense things, and hands don't go through because of gravity and energy, not because a bunch of density is resisting. And air is not empty, having a bunch of gases and other molecules floating through it. But it's easier to talk this way in common parlance to understand each other and get things done. As science advances, more will know what it really is like, even if they do not particularly appreciate the distinction.

COMMENTARY

Wisdom Quarterly

Buddha, why are you always smiling? Freedom?

One could say that it is not "who" is aware, but WHAT is aware? Asked this way, it can be answered. The Five Aggregates (form; feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousnesses) clung to as self (which are all dependently originated) phenomena. Form forms, feelings feel, perceptions perceive, formations form, and [the six kinds of] consciousness are conscious. Each PROCESS is arising, performing a function, and passing away very quickly, billions and trillions of nearly identical but not actually identical "thought-moments" (cittas) after another. Note the semicolon after form. Why is it there? Form means "material form" (fine-material or rupa in superior planes of existence and tangible or kama in this sensual human world), the body, which is not singular but also fourfold, composed of the mahabhuta or dhatus (Four Great Elements, which are not things like "atoms" but rather kalapas, dense fine-material particles, characteristics of materiality not materiality itself). These eight (condensed to five) aggregates are not to be taken on faith or for the sake of philosophy. Through the path of purification, the heart/mind can be temporarily purified, intensified, and trained to directly perceive these eight streams or phenomena. And in seeing them -- seeing them for what they really are -- the mind/heart lets go. One awakens to freedom from all attachment, aversion, and delusion about them. Thus, in no longer clinging to wrong views about them, one lets go and abandons them, glimpses nirvana, and is free. One enters the first stage of enlightenment or stream-entry. The Buddha does not talk about "no-self" lightly nor before one is ready to hear and begin to understand it. But he cannot let it go unmentioned and untaught because it is the basis, the crucial determinant, of awakening. In other non-Buddhist teachings, at the time of the Buddha as now, this teaching does not exist. Therefore, the Buddha said there neither arise beings of the first stage, second, third, or fourth stage of enlightenment, nor are there to be seen individuals on the path to those realizations. Only when a supremely awakened buddha arises in the world does this teaching get taught and the way of realizing it for oneself. For unless one comes to know-and-see it directly, there is no liberation.

Aggi Vacchagotta demands the Buddha answer

What is the Buddha really denying?

(Natasha Yehenara) Anatta ("no-self"): What exactly is the Buddha denying?

Gnosticism: Revoke bad pre-birth contracts

(Gnostic Talk) I revoked my pre-birth contract with the Demiurge -- then this happened (Gnosticism)

Vipassana: liberation through insight

Is vipassana really Buddhist? The truth about the world's most popular meditation

(Buddha's Wisdom) 🔍 IS VIPASSANA REALLY BUDDHIST? THE HIDDEN STORY BEHIND THE WORLD'S MOST PRACTICED KIND OF INSIGHT MEDITATION

Millions of people have practiced Buddhist vipassana meditation, but very few know what the word vipassanā originally meant, or how the modern movement transformed one of Buddhism's oldest insights into a global meditation phenomenon.

• The powerful, practical, and effective Pa Auk Sayadaw system to Buddhist liberation (stream entry and nirvana in this very life) by scholar-monk practitioner at Pa-Auk Forest Monastery (in Burma and around the world), the most Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw (aka Bhaddanta Āciṇṇa)
• What it’s like to spend a week at Pa-Auk Tawya Forest Monastery in Burma (Myanmar) | Meditation Magazine
• The American Monk student of Pa Auk Sayadaw

What is insight (vipassana) meditation actually for? This word doesn't mean "meditation" at all. And the practice millions know from Goenka's free 10-day silent retreats was born not in the Buddha's proto-India, but in [George Orwell's] colonial Burma, the day an empire stopped protecting the Theravada Dhamma.

This is the true story of insight meditation: what vipassanā really means, how it nearly vanished, and how a monk, a farmer, an accountant, and a businessman carried it to the modern world.

📿 DISCOVER:

• The original meaning of vipassanā and why it never simply meant "meditation"
• How the fall of the Burmese kingdom sparked the modern Vipassana Movement
• Why meditation was rare even among Buddhist monastics for nearly 1,000 years
• Why many Buddhist teachers say today's vipassana is both ancient and surprisingly modern
• The unlikely relay that saved insight practice: from Buddhist monk Ledi Sayadaw to a rice farmer to S.N. Goenka's flight home in 1969
• What today's vipassana retreats, the mindfulness movement, and scientific research gained... and what may have been left behind.

🙏 If this changed what viewers thought meditation was, subscribe. The next episode uncovers the other half the world forgot: the deep stillness of jhana ("meditative absorption" as samma-samadhi or "right stillness," "coherent unification of mind") the Buddha paired with insight.

📱 Join community:

• Instagram: buddhaswizdom    
• Facebook: buddhaswizdom  
• X: x.com/BuddhasWizdom
• Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5ndnBU5...
• TikTok: buddhas.wisdom

☕ Support channel:

• buymeacoffee.com/buddhaswisdom
• paypal.me/buddhaswisdom

⏱️ TIMESTAMPS:

• 00:00 Day 4 — inside the silence
• 01:54 What vipassanā really means
• 04:33 The ice cube — what seeing actually means
• 09:43 The king is gone — Mandalay, 1885
• 15:09 The farmer, the accountant, and the businessman
• 18:48 How vipassanā conquered the West
• 23:28 The homecoming

#vipassana #vipassanameditation #insightmeditation #buddhism #meditation #buddhistwisdom #mindfulness #theravada #buddhisthistory #goenka #Buddha

📚 SOURCES AND FURTHER READING: (affiliate links)

• Primary Buddhist Texts
• Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN 22.59) — Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta ("The Discourse on Not-Self")
• Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta ("The Four Foundations of Mindfulness Discourse," Majjhima Nikāya, MN 10)
• Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta ("The Greater Four Foundations of Mindfulness Discourse," Dīgha Nikāya, DN 22)
• Ānāpānasati Sutta ("Discourse on Mindfulness of In-and-Out Breathing," Majjhima Nikāya, MN 118)
• Selected passages from the Visuddhimagga (The Path of Purification) by Buddhaghosa

Historical and Scholarly Resources

• Erik Braun — The Birth of Insight: Meditation, Modern Buddhism, and the Burmese Monk Ledi Sayadaw amzn.to/4h8DnaQ
• Robert Sharf on meditation in monastic history; Robert Buswell on the lapse of vipassanā practice
• Bhikkhu Anālayo — works on Satipaṭṭhāna and early Buddhist meditation amzn.to/4bDh1KT
• Rupert Gethin — The Foundations of Buddhism amzn.to/4wGpXr3
• Bhikkhu Bodhi — translations of the Pāli canon amzn.to/4w4iJNB
• Prof. Donald S. Lopez, Jr. — writings on modern Buddhism
• Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche — teachings on Tibetan Buddhist meditation and lhaktong (vipaśyanā)
• Thich Nhat Hanh (Vietnamese Zen) — teachings on mindfulness, concentration, and insight amzn.to/4w6ILjx

Modern Scientific References

• Jon Kabat-Zinn — Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) amzn.to/4yooPKg
• Research on mindfulness, attention regulation, stress reduction, and contemplative neuroscience

#vipassana How this was made: Made with AI. Sounds or visuals were altered or fully generated. Learn more

Lapsed Atheism; Gnosticism vs. Christianity

(Gnostic Library) What is the gnosis ("knowledge") in Gnosticism? It is direct experience of truth

(Kayse Melone) Why I don't want to be an "atheist" anymore

Orthodox Christianity vs. Gnosticism Explained | Prof. Jiang

(Prof. Jiang MasterClass) June 27, 2026: UNITED STATES Professor Jiang Xueqin explores two very different ways of interpreting Christianity. First, the traditional (orthodox) understanding of the Bible: Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus.

Then the lecture moves into alternative esoteric interpretations drawn from historical mystical traditions, discussing ideas such as hidden knowledge, apocryphal texts, Nephilim narratives, the Gnostic Monad [GOD, Brahman], and symbolic readings of creation.

This video presents historical and philosophical interpretations for discussion and education not established historical fact or theological endorsement.

TOPICS COVERED:

— Orthodox Christianity and Biblical Covenants

— Hidden Interpretations and Esoteric Traditions

— Mind Creates Matter

— False God Theory and Jesus

— Paradise Lost and Hidden Meaning

This video is based on lectures by Prof. Jiang Xueqin, where we extract and simplify key ideas from long-form discussions into short, focused videos. Check out Prof. Jiang Xueqin's recommended books to supplement his ideas: ► The Divine Comedy (The Inferno, The Purgatorio, and The Paradiso) by Dante Alighieri: amzn.to/3NZSkzt ► Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy: amzn.to/3ZQfsmy ► Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins: amzn.to/4kskgs4. Check out the Prof. Jiang FULL curated reading list here:  docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yU...

The lectures featured on this channel are delivered by Prof. Jiang Xueqin. Original lectures: @predictivehistory. Content is used with permission from Prof. Jiang Xueqin. This channel breaks down complex topics in geopolitics, history, and global trends into clear and concise insights. Subscribe for simplified, idea-focused content.

• Kayse Melone, Xueqin; Eds., Wisdom Quarterly

Wise sayings for better living: Simple Life

(Flowing Void) Lao Tzu: The Ancient Philosophy of a Simple Life (Taoism's POV: wu wei)

The Art of Not Forcing

Wisdom Quarterly

Why even carry a sword? The art of kyudo

What is wu wei? It is the art of not forcing things, non-interference, effortless action, non-doing, non-resistance, the path of least resistance, going with the flow, the way of water, acting in harmony with the way life actually moves.

Once upon a time two great martial arts masters traveled the land, unbeaten, taking on all challengers and triumphing in each case. Then one day, by chance, they met at the creek. And one said to the other, "So we finally meet? Today shall be the day we see who the greater sage is, the warrior to vanquish all warriors, the Undefeated."

"Indeed, just as you say."

Then the first drew his sword with a resonant schwing and stabbed it into the water. It stood glimmering. Then he took out a piece of paper and placed it onto the water above the sword. The water carried the paper down, and his sharp sword sliced it in half down the middle just as it flowed by. At this, the first warrior shouted: "Behold!"

The second warrior drew his sword and stabbed the creek with his longer, stronger sword, shimmering more brightly on the surface of the water.

The first warrior trembled in anticipation, his confidence beginning to slip.

The Art of War

The Art of War for everyday life | Sun Tzu's wisdom explained

The second warrior took out a piece of paper, placed it above the sword on the surface of the water. And the current carried it down to the blade, going around the sword just as it passed.

The first fell to his knees, defeated, understanding too late, of course, that it is always wiser to avoid conflict and not fight. He cried out, "Indeed, master, we have settled it. And let it be known from this day forward, I am the inferior."

The other gently smiled and turned away.

Did it happen? Who knows. Could it have happened? Indeed! The Tao flows, wu wei, unobtrusive, doing nothing but leaving nothing undone. Forcing nothing but accomplishing everything. Behold, what we call Mother Nature!

Ancient Chinese philosophers' life lessons

(Quotes) Ancient Chinese philosopher's life lessons we learn too late in life: Eastern philosophy

Western Way: struggle, fight, push, lose

 

(Evan Bnormal) A monk of 28 years reveals why he abandoned society... [then gave up and left, to again live in the world, praying and meditating, but now being able to "pop out for a pint," as he explains]

Raw wisdom from growing up in Dublin, Ireland, and moving to London

Mind changes when we try to observe it

(Buddhism Podcast) Mind changes when we try to observe it mindfully | Buddhist Wisdom

• Mindfulness as sati (noticing, observing, bare awareness)
• Satipatthana: The Four Foundations of Mindfulness (body, feelings, mind, mind-objects)
• Satipatthana Sutta: Discourse on the Fourfold Setting Up of Mindfulness
• "Mindfulness" defined (Ven. Analayo)
• Establishing Mindfulness Sutra (podcast)

Dhp. 1. Mind precedes all mental states. [Mind is the forerunner of all conditions.] Mind is their chief; they are all mind-made (wrought). If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts, suffering follows one like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-made. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts, happiness follows one like one's never-departing shadow.

3. "That person abused me, struck me, overpowered me, robbed me!" Those who harbor such thoughts will not still their hatred.... More

• The Dhammapada: The Buddha's Path of Wisdom

Manjushri Bodhisattva cuts our ignorance

(Buddha's Wisdom with Matt) MANJUSHRI: The bodhisattva who cuts through ignorance

Thousand-Armed Manjushri

Manjushri (Sanskrit 𑀫𑀜𑁆𑀚𑀼𑀰𑁆𑀭𑀻, Romanized Mañjuśrī) is a bodhisattva who represents transcendental wisdom (prajñā) of the "Cosmic Buddhas" [like Vairocana] in Mahāyāna Buddhism.

The name "Mañjuśrī" is a combination of Sanskrit word mañju and the honorific -śhrī. It can therefore be literally translated as "Beautiful One with Glory" or "Beautiful One with Auspiciousness."

Namasangiti Manjushri

Mañjuśrī is also known by the fuller name of Mañjuśrī-kumāra-bhūta (मञ्जुश्रीकुमारभूत) [1], literally "Mañjuśrī, Still a Youth" or, less literally, "Youthful Prince Mañjuśrī." Another name of Mañjuśrī is Mañjughōṣa.

In Mahāyāna Buddhism

Scholars have identified Mañjuśrī as the oldest and most significant bodhisattva in Mahāyāna Buddhist literature [2]. Notable traits of Mañjuśhrī include: More

• Mount Wutai, China
• Mount Odaesan, Korea

It's impersonal: My EGO is an illusion?

Anattā: "not-self," "non-self," "non-ego," "egolessness," "selflessness," "soullessness," the fact that ultimately all is "impersonal" is the last and most difficult of the three fetters or wrong views to cut.

It is one of the Universal Characteristics of All Existence (ti-lakkhana). The anattā doctrine taught by the historical Buddha is that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence (the Five Aggregates clung to as self: form, feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousness), nor outside of them, can there be found anything that in the ultimate sense can ever be regarded as a self or independently-existing real ego-entity, soul, self, or any other abiding essence, substance, or atman.

This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without the understanding of which any real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible.

It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire structure of the Buddhist Teaching (Dharma, Dhamma) stands or falls.

All the remaining Buddhist doctrines might, more or less, be found in other philosophical systems or religions, but the anattā-doctrine is only clearly and unreservedly taught by the Buddha (or buddhas before him), wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattā-vādi, or "Teacher of Egolessness."

Whoever has not penetrated this impersonal characteristic of all existence and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process, that person will not be able to understand Buddhism, that is, the teaching of the Four Ennobling (Enlightening) Truths (sacca) in the correct light.

One will think that it is one's ego or personality that experiences suffering, one's person that performs good and harmful karma and will be reborn according to those actions, one's personality that will enter into nirvana, one's personality that practices the Ennobling Eightfold Path. More

Egoless Led Zeppelin (JBLZE) in Hollywood?

JBLZE “Stairway to Heaven” live at LA's Greek Theater, Hollywood, May 23, 2026

The only Led Zeppelin reunion in history

Led Zeppelin: Celebration Day, live at The O2 Arena, London (England 2007)

There is a self, but it's ultimately impersonal.

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.

UCLA does not (ultimately) exist. Here's why.

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).

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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

.

With John Travolta as Robert Plant

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).

 

What five members (factors)?

Fifth member Pete (Manager Peter Grant) is the best like Fifth Beatle Pete Best

 

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.

• Is original Led Zeppelin singer Robert Plant a Buddhist or simply a Gypsy mystic with a penchant for writing epic Nordic lyrics? What about Now and Zen and Manic Nirvana?
• Science find a cure for ringing in the ear? Lenire ®: Tinnitus treatment using bimodal neuromodulation

Original Led Zeppelin drummer John's son Jason’s Led Zeppelin Experience Evening “Kashmir” LIVE The Greek Theater Los Angeles Hollywood, California May 23, 2026

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.

We never step into same river twice: Heraclitus

All things are impersonal: anattā

Ven. Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary of Doctrines and Terms edited by Wisdom Quarterly

What are the Five Aggregates in Buddhism?

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):

"Mere dukkha [ignorance] exists;

No experiencer of dukkha is found;

Deeds are, but no doer of deeds is there;

Nirvana is, but not one who experiences it;

The Path is, but no traveler on it is seen." More

Get Him to the Greek: smoke Epstein

Penis Diddy, accused rapist Russell Brand, that Jewish guy and Jonah Hill

Rock's future: Japanese Buddhist girls?

(KreciolaTV) Hanabie. LIVE Pol'and'Rock Festival 2025 (full concert)

• Dhr. Seven, Ananda (Dharma Buddhist Meditation), Ashley Wells (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly