The Buddhist Dark Night of the 'Soul'

(Buddha's Wisdom) Breakdown or breakthrough.

• Catholic/Christian mystics understand, “To get your breakthrough, sometimes God needs to break you.”
• Dark Night of the Soul: What it is and how to move through it

Dark Night of the Soul

The Dark Night of the Soul (Spanish La noche oscura del alma) is a phase of passive purification in the mystical development of an individual's spirit, according to the 16th-century Spanish mystic and Catholic poet St. John of the Cross.

St. John describes the concept in his treatise Dark Night (Noche Oscura), commenting on his poem of the same name.

John of the Cross, 1656

It follows after the second phase, the illumination in which God's presence is felt, but this presence is not yet stable.

The author himself did not give any title to his poem, which together with this commentary and the Ascent of Mount Carmel (Subida del Monte Carmelo) forms a treatise on the active and passive purification of the senses and the spirit, leading to mystical union [1] or "yoga" through samadhi.

El Greco "View of Toledo" (Google Art Project)

In modern times, the phrase "dark night of the soul" has become a popular phrase to describe a crisis of faith or a difficult and painful period in one's life.

The poem

Dating and subject: The poem of St. John of the Cross, in eight stanzas of five lines each, narrates the journey of the individual (soul, personality, persona, ego, self, spirit) to mystical union with God or the Godhead (Brahman). More

The Dark Night of the Soul

By St. John of the Cross

Dark Night of the Soul (by ogipavkovic on DeviantArt)

I. In a dark night,

With anxious love inflamed,

O, happy lot!

Forth unobserved I went,

My house being now at rest.

II. In darkness and in safety,

By the secret ladder, disguised,

O, happy lot!

In darkness and concealment,

My house being now at rest.

III. In that happy night,

In secret, seen of none,

Seeing nought myself,

Without other light or guide

Save that which in my heart was burning.

IV. That light guided me

More surely than the noonday sun

To the place where He was waiting for me,

Whom I knew well,

And where none appeared.

V. O, guiding night;

O, night more lovely than the dawn;

O, night that hast united

The lover with His beloved,

And changed her into her love.

VI. On my flowery bosom,

Kept whole for Him alone,

There He reposed and slept;

And I cherished Him, and the waving

Of the cedars fanned Him.

VII. As His hair floated in the breeze

That from the turret blew,

He struck me on the neck

With His gentle hand,

And all sensation left me.

VIII. I continued in oblivion lost,

My head was resting on my love;

Lost to all things and myself,

And, amid the lilies forgotten,

Threw all my cares away. Source

• The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul (Douglas Adams)

Zen and the "self" we are defending

(ECHOES OF LOST KNOWLEDGE)

Dalai Lama, what happens after death?

(The Dalai Lama)

One world, many faiths

The 14th Dalai Lama, more a Hindu Mahayana Buddhist teacher preaching Tibetan Vajrayana than Buddhism, demonstrates a poor grasp of what the historical Buddha taught about "self" (anatta).

What Hinduism calls the soul/self or Ātman (Pali Atta, Ātman (Hinduism Buddhified), what to followers of the pre-Hindu Old Vedic Religion (the Brahmin priests' Brahmanism) is ultimately the same as Brahman (GOD), comparing drops of water to the vast ocean they merge with and ultimately return to after experiencing a sense of separation. The historical Buddha did not talk like this at all.

(Little Light of Wisdom) The one bad habit the Buddha feared most

ANY explanation of what happens to the "self" (soul, ego, personality, essence of a person) after death (indeed of what happens in this very life from moment to moment) must include reference and a discussion of Dependent Origination. For what arises and what seems to arise is not the same; similarly, what passes away and what seems to pass away is not the same.

The one bad habit the Buddha feared most
(Little Light of Wisdom) Dec. 6, 2025: In this episode we explore a powerful teaching the Buddha gave to his son, Rahula, now a young monk. He used a simple glass of water and a royal war elephant. Together we learn:

• Why the Buddha said there is one bad habit that opens the door to every other bad action
• How an empty glass shows what happens to our good qualities when we lie
• How a king’s elephant teaches us about trust, courage, and honesty
• Why lying creates confusion, blame, and karmic trouble in our lives
• How telling the truth protects our heart, our friendships, and our future

💛 This story is perfect for kids, teens, parents, and anyone who wants to grow in wisdom, kindness, and truthfulness. #BuddhaWisdom #DhammaTalk #BuddhistStories

Find this helpful? Please like, share, and subscribe so more people can learn these beautiful historical teachings. 🌱

Dhamma Q&A live from Birken (Ajahn Sona)

Live from Birken: Dhamma Q&A with Ajahn Sona

(Ajahn Sona) Streamed live on June 15, 2025: Dhamma Questions & Answers. Join Birken Monastery on Sunday as Ajahn Sona answers Dhamma questions from listeners around the world. Questions may be submitted during the live chat (opens around 8:00 am on the day of streaming) or in advance, here: bit.ly/LivestreamQnA. Ajahn Sona Podcast: AppleAjSona, SpotifyAjSona, PodbeanAjSona. Question & Answer Archive: birken.ca/qaa/qaa.php.

• Not self (anattā) makes no sense. Can you explain?

Who's behind my eyes experiencing all this?

Who is the one behind our eyes? Buddhist insights beyond no-self

(Buddhism Podcast) Buddhism Explained. Right now, it feels like someone is watching from behind our eyes. Who is it? Buddhism teaches that what we call “self” (atta, atman, soul, ego, personality, essence) is not what it seems.

The Buddha didn’t just deny the self — he pointed to something much deeper, something that remains when the seeker disappears. This video follows the teachings on awareness, no-self, and the quiet presence that doesn’t need a name. The Buddha’s answer isn’t something to find — it’s what’s always been here.

• 00:00 - "No one there"...but why does it still feel like someone's watching?
• 05:37 - Not a person, just a process
• 10:25 - The final trap: holding onto "no-self"
• 14:46 - No one is seeing, but seeing still happens
• 18:51 - When the seeker disappears

#BuddhistWisdom #NoSelf #BehindYourEyes

• Buddhism Podcast, June 12, 2025; Eds., Wisdom Quarterly

No-self sees Afterlife, Karma, Rebirth

Is there "life after death"? It's better to think of it as there being life after life (after life...ad nauseum). This process of karma (deeds) bringing about their results (resultants and fruits) is unending. It can be ended, brought to a standstill, but it will not ever stop on its own. Anyone who fears ending should know ahead of time that death is not it. One will transition out of here, lose all that is loved, and reappear elsewhere -- not one place but any of countless places where those former deeds willed, carried out, and accumulated can bear their results. Death is terrible for that reason. It is not terrible for the reason we mainly fear in ignorance, that it somehow signals the end of everything. It does not signal the end of anything, except perhaps active firsthand participation in what we're used to. But there is more, much more, and endless amount of more. And this is not good. While it should allay fears of disappearing forever, it (rebirth) should not please one into thinking the game goes on for more playtime even after the screen reads "Game over." Yes, this round stops abruptly only for another one to stop. The Buddha when he awakened saw this playing out incessantly for ALL living beings, faring along according to their karma. He saw his own countless past lives in general and in their details. "Long enough have we all wandered in this samsara, long enough to be done with it," he taught. But we aren't done with. We don't want to be done with it. And why? Because we don't see it for what it really is. We do not see its three universal characteristics: It's radically impermanent, it's never going to fulfill or satisfy us, and it's impersonal. What does it mean to be "radically" impermanent? Isn't that just that our new house eventually becomes dilapidated and falls down in 100 years or so? No! That's obvious impermanence. The Buddha wasn't harping on that. What he was harping on was radical (from the root or radix) transience, flux, change from moment to moment. "Everything is hurtling toward destruction," were his final words, "so work out your liberation [from suffering] with diligence." There's no time to waste, so brief is a human life, so rare to ever hear the Buddha Dharma. There's no time to argued, the Beatles urged. We have this moment. What is the most valuable way to use it as it slip away from us? We can accrue good (skillful, useful, beneficial, profitable, wholesome, resulting in wished for and pleasant results) karma, or we can accrue the best karma -- actions that bring about the end of all action. The practice is about doing what must be done to end suffering. There is so much suffering to come, stretched out before us so much further than we can see or fathom. To make an end of it, to stop grasping at trivial things for real knowledge and vision worthy of noble (enlightened) ones, that is something in line with why the Buddha taught and what dismayed Mara who, if he had his way, would trap us in the Sensual Sphere for all time. This is no place to be. The Sensual Sphere is where the animal, human, and hells are along with Sense Sphere heavens. There is much better pleasure than sensuality, and there is freedom beyond that. Do good, and do the best good (meditate for calm and insight) to gain freedom.

Clinically dead man sees the afterlife, shown truth about our dimension (NDE)

(The Other Side NDE) Bill Letson's NDE (near-death experience) trip to the afterlife was mind-expanding. This short video is about what that California man learned from his experience in 1994. He never forgot and for years had no words for it. His NDE took him on a trip through the afterlife, where he was shown amazing truths about life on earth and the unreality of death.

🙏 Help get stories from around the globe 🌍 ➡️ tinyurl.com/helptheothersidende #nde #neardeathexperiences #neardeathexperience

• ⭐ Exclusive interviews on Patreon: theothersidende

The Dalai Lama on why his reincarnation is unimportant; this life is important. Future is the future's.

Buddhist karma and rebirth explained

(SEEKER TO SEEKER) The impersonal law of karma and the impersonal process of rebirth are bedrock teachings of the Buddha. [All things -- in an ultimate, not a conventional, sense -- are impermanent, unable to fulfill or satisfy, and impersonal: understanding how and why is the meaning of awakening, of being enlightened and free. It is not obvious, or the Buddha would have seen no necessity of teaching these things. But they are necessary to know-and-see for us to be able to let go and be free of all suffering] They are also the most problematic ones. To some, karmic rebirth seems like outdated superstition. It ruins the image of Buddhism as a rational philosophy of life. Within the Buddhist tradition, too, karma and rebirth raise difficult questions. If the Buddha taught only the impersonal (anatta, "no-self") doctrine or karma and rebirth, everything would have been fine. But he insisted both that all things are without self (impersonal) and that there is karma and rebirth. Now, if there is no self, who or what gets reborn? And if there are no selves, how can you or I or anyone have karma (or undergo rebirth)? And how does karma pass or cross over from one life to the next? And does karma suggest our lives are predetermined – that there is no free will? If so, why does the Buddha teach that so much effort be put into improving our lives and gaining liberation here and now in this very life?

#buddhism #buddha #philosophy #religion #spirituality #dharma #dhamma ⭐ Support this channel: seeker2seeker 💰 PayPal donations: paypal.com/donate... 📨 Subscribe to the Newsletter: mailchi.mp/a693c2c7c985/wisdo...

COMMENTARY

The impersonal process keeps rolling after our experience here, which is just one of an uncountable number of reappearances we experience, and the process, which is like a dream, does not stop until we awaken. People who go through NDEs lose their fear of death, seeing what really happens as the process cycles and cycles.

• But, c'mon, there is a "self," right? Well, there's not a self really, but there conventionally-speaking, of course there's a self. It's the one speaking now and the one being spoken to, and all that we identify with. What do we identify with? Body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness(es). Looked at closely, however, it becomes clear that none of these are actually the "self" they seem to be when integrated all together. So a much better question to ask is, If there's not a self, is there nothing, or what is there? The answer to this is very clearly, and the Buddha explained this again and again to those who could see: There is Dependent Origination, a process by which things come into being. There is not "nothing," but there is in a very deep sense no-thing. What's a "thing"? A thing is an amalgamation, something composed of constituents, like a cross. What is a cross +? It's just two lines, neither of which is a cross. But when placed together just so, what is there? Aah-aah-aah, careful. When placed together, there are just two lines, but that's not what the mind sees. The mind misinterprets reality and sees something new arise, an illusion. Yes, there's a line, two in fact, so there's not nothing. (This is also interesting, there isn't really a line, because a line itself is a "thing," an amalgamation of parts that are not a line). There comes into being a thing, and the characteristics of that thing are threefold: it is impermanent (coming into being utterly dependent on its conditions), and it is unsatisfactory (utterly incapable of fulfilling or satisfying), and most shocking of all, it is impersonal (empty, utterly dependent on constituent-things that are not it but without which there is not the illusion of it having come into being). Very intelligent and kind people would go argue with the Buddha to show he that he was crazy to claim there was no self, no soul, no ego, no atman (or personality, permanent soul or essence of the person). They were amazed that anyone, much less someone so famous and intelligent, willing to hold such a view. The Buddha kindly showed them that he was not holding a view, they were. They were clinging to sakkaya-ditthi (personality-view) and it was much to their detriment, and asked how he could possibly explain things, anything, without reference to a self, the Buddha very cogently showed that he understood the misunderstanding and alarm caused by this knowledge. He explained everything in terms of Dependent Origination without any difficulty. One might think, then as now, that the Buddha contradicted himself every time he, conventionally speaking, said "I" or "mine" or used the self-referential term "Tathagata? (Wayfarer, Thus Come One, Well Gone One), but no enlightened person is confused by the use of conventional speech: If we say to a child, "When the Boogieman comes, I'm going to tell him that you were misbehaving," who but a child would think that binds us to a belief in an actual Boogieman who cares about a kid's behavior? We say it because that is what a child will understand not because we have misunderstood nor because by saying it we suddenly become confused and lose an argument: "I say there is no self." "Aha! you just 'I' thereby proving there is a self." "Oh, gee, Bob, you got me there; there's no getting around that logic. WHAT DOES IT MATTER THAT THERE IS, ultimately speaking, NO SELF? Why even bother to say such a preposterous thing that is going to upset so many of our commonsense sensibilities, the structure of our language, the whole proposition of the world we think we are trapped in? THERE IS AT LEAST ONE GREAT REASON FOR THAT: There is no enlightened person outside the unique Teaching (Doctrine, Dharma) of the impersonality of all things. It is what must be penetrated and understood, known-and-seen, to enter upon the very first stage of enlightenment (bodhi, awakening) called stream entry. So it is of the utmost importance to have at least a conceptual understanding of what we cannot accept, don't want to accept, and may even be afraid of. It is not bad news that there is no self. There is what there is, and that is what there has been all this time we were ignorant of it. We will not turn into a piece of unsmoke when we realized the Buddha was really wise -- wise beyond all measure and comprehension, imponderably so -- when he set out what all buddhas of the past, present, and future realized and taught for the liberation of beings. "Hey, what about that +?" "What about it? There it is. Just as there are lines (even though there really aren't), there are crosses, conventionally speaking, and if it's useful to give something a name and a definition and a patent, do it. That doesn't mean it really comes into being ultimately speaking, for what would it mean if it were real? The Buddha talks in detail about that. For instance, if there really were a self, it should do as I wish it to, but it doesn't. Whatever there is, it's not under my control. I don't wish for it to grow old, sickly, then die. I wish for it to always be young, never get sick, and surely never die. But the darn thing does anyway. I wish for it to be strong, beautiful, loved, but it isn't. It's not following my dictates but some other impersonal laws or forces that are a mystery to me. So before I call it mine, or think of it as personal, I should at least be able to exercise basic control over it, right?" "Right, but you don't." "Right, yet everyone calls it mine and trains me to see it as mine and makes me to worry about it and take all responsibility..." "It seems too hard to learn this intellectually." "Right, so go have fun reading the Heart Sutra, and maybe one day it will sink in in a sudden flash of illumination. ;)

Seers in ancient India came to understand that death is not fearful because "everything ends" but because, yet again, we are cut off from loved ones, all that we cling to, all that we imagine ourselves to be, and undergo the difficulties of rebirth or relinking again and again. And it is not, as the popular conception goes, all for some higher purpose of getting better and better, learning lessons, and evolving. The Buddha clearly saw and reported that it is like rollercoaster, swirling out of control, taking us up and plunging us down. We hanker, grasp, desire, and chase pleasures wherever we can find them, getting into all kinds of karmic trouble for a long, long time, rarely meeting with a good teaching and examples that take us in the other direction. All of us are beset by "mixed" karma, some skillful, some unskillful, and what deed conditions the next rebirth is like the toss of dice, a cr*pshoot, which makes it fearful. It is very hard to be sure what the next reappearance will be because it depends on the nanosecond of passing, and even the best meditators rarely gain that much control of their thinking, emotions, and consciousness to ensure that it is something welcome and wished for awaiting us. What awaits us is NOT set but the product of our own deeds throughout this life. If we were ruled by the past, there would be no sense. If it was all fate and fixed, there would be no doing, no acting, no deeds that would matter. They do matter, and that means our thoughts, words, and deeds have tremendous sway over all we experience here and now as well as then and there. The Buddha in his day was never called a "Buddhist" but he was frequently referred to as a Karmavadin, "a teacher of the efficacy of deeds" to bring about appropriate results. So straightening up now will have exponential effects for the future, long into the future, over countless lives to come. Making an end of rebirth now limits suffering and brings it to a complete end for those wise enough to see why this is such a tremendously rare and good thing.

• Dalai Lama 2019; Bill Leston, The Other Side NDE, Dec. 28, 2022; Seeker to Seeker, March 8, 2024; Eds., Wisdom Quarterly
  

Buddhism is not Hinduism: rebirth

Finally, scientists accept Hinduism's reincarnation! Not to be believed

(Curious Plus) Nov. 24, 2024: There is no reincarnation in Buddhism. But there is a whole lotta rebirth (patisandhi, reappearance, rearising), that is, the relinking or reunion of consciousness from one life to the next. There is a lot of reincarnation in Hinduism. So what is the difference? It's a minor detail, one that cannot be comprehended by ordinary people without insight or purified vision (vipassana). It's just that in Buddhism there is no self (no soul, no ego, no eternal being). If there were, as there is in Hinduism, Christianity, and many religions, that soul could go into flesh again and be re-incarnated.

• The science of Prof. of Psychology Ian Stevenson
• The curious case of Shanti Devi

But since this is not what is really happening, Buddhism says no to reincarnation. (Mahayana Buddhism is almost exactly Hinduism in different terms, so that it should use the terms "reincarnation" and "rebirth" interchangeably is not a surprise). Not only is there not a "soul" (atman) to merge with God (Brahma) or GOD (Brahman, the Godhead, the reality behind all illusion/maya).

I know, I know, of course there's a "self." How could there not be? Look here, it's talking. Look there, it's reading. The Buddha does not deny the obvious. He talks about the subtle and totally unobvious: that ALL things, in an ultimate sense, are impersonal.

And this is very hard to see and almost to accept until it is known-and-seen. But why would anyone want to know-and-see such an ultimate truth? It is the key to what the Buddha called enlightenment and liberation. What Hinduism and other post-Vedic teachers taught about a soul endlessly wandering on through samsara.

Fast forward through all the commonplace questions that people ask when they learn of this (anatta principle) and we are left with just one important question: "Well, if there isn't a self, what is there? What is all this?" The answer is Dependent Origination. If one saw that, understood that, there would be no confusion. There would be no question what all this is. ALL that comes to be comes to be through Dependent Origination. It all originates dependent on causes and condition. It co-arises with them. They are not there and then the thing; they are the thing. When this is, that comes to be; when this arises, that arises. When it is not, that is not.

The Hindu question is often this: "But isn't consciousness (the stream or bhavanga) the thing that carries on and therefore the soul, the self, the atman?" The answer is no, because consciousness does not "carry on." It is constantly broken. At death it breaks again, as before, but now is met with a new substrate (created by karma), and the impersonal process continues. It is not right to say that things are what they seem, that consciousness goes from life to life as if it were the same consciousness going.

This is the way it SEEMS, but it is not ultimately true. What is true, what can be seen with the development of mental purity (visuddhi) through samadhi then vipassana (the development of mindfulness-based "insight" or "clear seeing"). The Buddha did not teach this directly to laypeople, nor even to new monastics, because not only can they not see it, not accept it, they can't even fathom it ever being true. But when they see directly, when they understand, it becomes self-evident and they are freed from ignorance. Until then, we may as well talk about an invisible soul going from life to life, changing suits, doing all these things, bearing all of these results, suffering, and dying, and being reincarnated again (or reappearing in fleshless light bodies, kaya, a lot of the time). So never mind.

A famous enlightened Buddhist monk (Venerable Nagasena) of the past tried to explain it to ancient Greek King Menander I (King Milinda in Buddhist records known as the Pali canon):

• "Now, Ven. Nāgasena, the one who is reborn, is he the same as the one who has died, or is he another?"
• "Neither the same, nor another" (na ca so na ca añño).
• "Give me an example."
• "What do you think, O king: Are you now, as a grown-up person, the same that you had been as a young, little, and tender babe?"
• "No, venerable sir. Another person was the young, little, and tender babe, but quite a different person am I now as a grown-up man.". . .
• "...Is perhaps, in the first part of the night, one lamp burning, another one in the middle part, and again another one in the last part?"
• "No, venerable sir. The light during the whole night depends on one and the same lamp.''
• "Just so, O king, is the chain of phenomena (causation) linked together. One phenomenon arises, another vanishes, yet all are linked together, one after the other, without interruption. In this way one reaches the final state of consciousness neither as the same person nor as another person.''

Here the great German Theravada Buddhist monk Ven. Nyanatiloka explains the unacceptable sentence "All things are impersonal" in a rational and direct way by defining anatta as "not-self," "non-ego," "egolessness [soullessness]," "impersonality." It is the last of the Three Characteristics of Existence.

The anattā doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul, or any other abiding substance. More.

Join the channel to get access to amazing perks. Subscribe to the channel for more amazing videos. @CuriousPlus. Thanks for watching!

• Alan Watts (alanwatts.org); CuriousPlus, 11/24/24; Ven. Nyantiloka, Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines; Eds., Wisdom Quarterly

Deep inside Taylor Swift: ERAS[e] Tour Film

Taylor Swift, Aug. 31, 2023; Bauhaus "Party of the First Part"; Eds., Wisdom Quarterly

Ellen, why are you being so mean to me?! I'm trying to look brave and smart like a princess!

Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour Concert Film

(Taylor Swift) Go to a theater to get hypnotized and catch a case of post-concert amnesia. Pay for tickets now to see America's second sweetheart (behind Olivia) Taylor "Nazi Barbie" Swift as she debuts a new arm of her corporation, a movie production house, Traylor's Trailers, with Soon To Be Gone Kelce.

T-Swift sure goes through a lot of guys. Cursed? Covert Narcissist?

I'm a Loser because I lose men.

THE ERAS TOUR Concert Film is only in theaters (for now) worldwide, beginning on always lucky Friday the 13th of Oct. 2023 (taylor.lnk.to/TSTheErasTourFi...). #taylorswift

The cultural phenomenon continues on the big screen. Be immersed in her greatness in this once-in-a-lifetime concert film experience (well, except for the next one and every copycat film by BTS Inc., Justin T, Justin B, Justin-Time...) with a breathtaking, cinematic view of the history-making tour.

• Taylor Swift fans claim 'post-concert amnesia' due to bizarre phenomenon: Satanic induction? (nypost.com)

Bart Barker really has her number. Wonder if her legal team can sue.

Taylor Swift Eras tour attire and friendship bracelets are strongly encouraged to show solidarity with her future football franchise fund so she can buy a home near Kelce to keep an eye on him if need be. ►Pre-order 1989 (Taylor's Version), out October 27: https://taylor.lnk.to/1989taylorsversion ►Shop  for more and more Merch: http://taylorswift.lnk.to/store ►Follow Tay Dog: TikTok: http://tiktok.com/@taylorswift Instagram: http://instagram.com/taylorswift Twitter: http://twitter.com/taylorswift13 Snapchat: http://snapchat.com/add/taylorswift Facebook: http://facebook.com/taylorswift Tumblr: http://taylorswift.tumblr.com Website: http://www.taylorswift.com ►Follow Taylor Nation Online TikTok: http://tiktok.com/@taylornation Instagram: http://instagram.com/taylornation Twitter: http://twitter.com/taylornation13 Tumblr: http://taylornation.tumblr.com #taylorswift

I am that I am? Buddhism's No-Self Teaching

Seekertoseeker.com (YouTube), Oct. 9, 2021; Dhr. Seven (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly

"I Am That" | about a nun's awakening to life | Prime Video (amazon.com)

I thought I was consciousness itself. Isn't it so?

(SEEKER TO SEEKER) One says, "I am," but what does the word "I" refer to? According to the Buddhist Teaching of No-Self (the Anatta Doctrine), to answer this question correctly is to reach enlightenment and liberation.

It is to reach the end of all disappointment, suffering, pain, and unhappiness. To answer this is to explore the Buddha's teaching of the Five Aggregates (skandhas or khandhas), the categorical constituents of the ego, self, or soul:

1. form (body)
2. feeling (sensation)
3. perception (cognition)
4. formations (will)
5. consciousness (awareness).

This teaching is variously called anatta (Pali), anatman (Sanskrit), no-self, non-self, impersonality, soullessness, egolessness.

The essence of the teaching is that enlightenment (bodhi, awakening) and liberation (moksha, nirvana) come about when one realizes that every view of the self we can have is a wrong view.

When one lets go of grasping, of falsely identifying with the contents of experience, only then can one put an end to all suffering (dukkha) once and for all. That is bliss, this is peace, that is ultimate truth and happiness the Buddha called nirvana.

• Why did God call itself “I AM THAT I AM”? (chicagobible.org)
• Hebrew: "I will become whatsoever I will become"/"Whatever"
• Facebook: facebook.com/groups/32571...
• Website: seekertoseeker.com
• To learn more about the Five Aggregates (pancha khandha) as found in the original Buddhist texts, visit: accesstoinsight.org
• For an in-depth study into the Buddhist no-self doctrine, see:
• Identity and Experience by Sue Hamilton
• Selfless Persons by Steven Collins

Eckhart Tolle: What about the "ego"? (video)

Eckhart Tolle, Oct. 9, 2012; CC Liu, Crystal Q. (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Did the Universe make a mistake with the Ego? FEATURED Q&A: A look at the ego's possible role in our awakening eckharttollenow.com. For the Buddha and the enlightened, there really is NO ego.

Intercept: Whistlelower cover blown Reality...

Associated Press (ap.org); Pat Macpherson, Pfc. Sandoval (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Hi, my name is Reality Winner. I'm a whistle blower against soulless ginger Trump (AP).

Obama/GOP will not tolerate whistleblowing

It will be difficult for 25-year-old Reality Winner to get a fair trial if her case becomes "this big thing where we're not going to tolerate leakers [whistleblowers]," Winner's mother, Billie Winner-Davis, told The Associated Press in an interview.

 

"I think they're going to try to make an example out of her because of the political climate right now," Winner-Davis said.

Winner, a former Air Force linguist who now works as a U.S. government contractor, was arrested Saturday by FBI agents on charges that she made copies of a classified report containing top-secret information and mailed it to an online news organization [called The Intercept or WikiLeaks].

 

A judge has scheduled a hearing Thursday for Winner in U.S. District Court to determine whether to allow her to be released on bond pending trial....

I'm not a "soulless ginger orangutan" like Reality Winner says. I'm a redhead.

.

Prosecutors have not named the news outlet, but her arrest was announced Monday as the website The Intercept reported it had obtained a classified NSA (National Security Agency) report suggesting Russian hackers had attacked a U.S. voting software supplier before last year's presidential election....

 

The Intercept said the NSA report was dated May 5 -- the same date court records cited for the documents Winner is accused of leaking....

She posted on Facebook three months ago that climate change is a more important issue than health care "since not poisoning an entire population seems to be more in line with 'health' care, and not the disease care system that people voted for a soulless ginger orangutan to 'fix.'" More

Was the Buddha serious about "not-self"?

German Buddhist monk Ven. Nyanatiloka (Buddhist Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines), anatta entry edited by Dhr. Seven, CC Liu, Wisdom Quarterly

Anatta (Sanskrit an-atman) literally means "not-self," no-soul, egolessness, impersonality, selflessness.

It is the last -- and in some sense the most subtle and difficult to grasp -- of the Three Marks or Characteristics of Existence.

This teaching or doctrine of an-attā (not-self) states that neither within nor outside of the physical-and-mental phenomena of existence can there be found anything that -- in the ultimate sense -- can be regarded as a self, soul, self-existing ego-entity, or any other abiding essence.

 

This is the central doctrine of Buddhism. Without understanding it -- at least intellectually if not by penetrative insight [which destroys the delusion of compactness of self into its constituent parts, i.e., the Five Aggregates of Clinging], which would lead to enlightenment -- a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible.

• What are the requisites of Buddhist enlightenment?

It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, the unique teaching of all buddhas in history, with which the entire structure of Buddhist Teaching stands or falls.

This body, this breath being here now

All the remaining Buddhist doctrines might, more or less, be found in other philosophical systems or religions.

But the anattā-doctrine is clearly and unreservedly taught only by buddhas, which is why the historical Buddha (Prince Siddhartha Gautama or Shakyamuni) was known as the Anattā-vādi, or "Teacher of Impersonality."

 

Whoever has not penetrated the impersonal nature of all existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this process of continual arising and passing of physical-and-mental phenomena, and that there is no independent ego-entity (separate from the impersonal parts or aggregates of existence that constitute it) within or without the process, that person will be unable to understand Buddhism, namely, the profound depth of the Buddhist teaching of the Four Noble (Ennobling/Enlightening) Truths... More

A Day at the Beach (no-self)

Sister Khema, Meditating on No-Self: Dhamma Talk (Edited for Bodhi Leaves) edited by Amber Larson and Dhr. Seven for Wisdom Quarterly

This is me, myself, and I...and my dog.

In Buddhism we use the words "self" and "no-self," so it is important to understand just what this "no-self" (anatta) is all about even if it is first just an idea.

This is because the essence of the Buddha's teaching hinges on this realization. This teaching is unique to Buddhism. No other spiritual teachers in history, other than buddhas, which are fully enlightened teachers establishing the Dharma in the world, ever come to realize and teach no-self. No philosophers, no thinkers, no debaters, no sages or seers. It may be the only teaching that has no parallel in other philosophies, religions, or doctrines.

Because of the way it was formulated by the Buddha, there exists the possibility of speaking about it. Otherwise, it would not even occur to one that it is true. Much has been written about no-self, but in order to know it, one must experience it. And that is what the teaching aims at, the experience (liberating insight) of no-self, egolessness, impersonality, suchness (utterly altruistic unselfishness).

 

Look at me, look at my body. This is me.

Yet in order to experience no-self, one has first to fully know what "self" is, actually know it. For unless we do know what this "self" we are slaves to is, the self called "me," "myself" and that grasps at things as "mine," it is impossible to know what is meant by the preposterous/perplexing claim, "There [ultimately speaking] is no self there." In order to give something away, to let it go, to abandon it, we first have to have it in hand. We have to know why we would want to do that.

 

We are constantly trying to reaffirm self. This already shows that this "self" is a very fragile and wispy thing. If it weren't why would we constantly have to reaffirm it? Why are we constantly afraid of the "self" being threatened, being insecure, worrying that i may not get what it needs for survival? If it were such a solid entity as we believe it to be, as we take for granted that it is, we would not so often feel threatened.

 

Southern California coast where the salt hits he sand, Point Dune, Malibu (wiki)

.

I bought all these clothes; they're totally me!

We affirm "self" again and again through identification. We identify with a certain name, an appearance, a memory, a story, an age, a gender, a habit, an ability, an occupation. "I am a lawyer, I am a doctor, I am an accountant, I am a student." And we identify with the people we are attached to. "I am a husband, I am a wife, I am a mother, I am a daughter, I am a son."

Now, in the manner of conventional speech, we have to use the word/concept "self" in that way -- but it isn't only in speech. We really think that that "self" we refer to is real, is enduring, is who we are. We really believe it.

There is no doubt in our mind that that "self" is who we are. When any one of these factors is threatened, if being a wife is threatened, if being a mother is threatened, if being a lawyer is threatened, if being a teacher is threatened -- or if we lose the people who enable us to retain that "self" -- what a tragedy!

 

The self-identification becomes insecure, and "me" finds it hard to say "look at me," "this is me." Praise and blame are included. Praise reaffirms "me." Blame threatens [but subtly reinforces the sense of] "me." So we like the praise and we dislike the blame. The ego is threatened. Fame and infamy -- same thing. Loss and gain. If we gain, the ego gets bigger; if we lose, it gets a bit smaller.

So we are constantly in a quandary and in constant fear. The ego might lose a little bit of its grandeur. It might be made a bit smaller by someone. And it happens to all of us. Somebody is undoubtedly going to blame us for something eventually. Even the Buddha was blamed.

 

But the blame that is levied at us is not the problem. The problem is our reaction. The problem is that we feel smaller. The ego has a hard time reasserting itself. So what we usually do is we blame back, making the other's ego a bit smaller too.

 

Money, sex, food...am "I" enlightened yet?

Identification with whatever it is that we do and whatever it is that we have, be it possessions or people, is -- so we believe -- needed for our survival, "self" survival. If we don't identify with this or that, we feel as if we were in limbo. This is the reason why it is difficult to stop thinking in meditation. Without thinking there would be no identification. If I don't think, what do I identify with?

It is difficult to come to a stage in meditation in which there is actually nothing to identify with anymore.

 

Happiness, too, may be an identification. "I am happy." "I am unhappy." Because we are so keen on survival, we have got to keep on identifying... More

• Rebirth takes place according to perception even though there is no self to be reborn -- because this empty process (dependent on impersonal factors) rolls on (and is kept rolling by ignorance, craving, aversion)