Let's have a buddhist thread Veeky Forums

...

Can any one give me a rundown between the different buddhist schools and their merit?

Currently looking into nyingma and would be interested to hear other views.

Also does anyone else have trouble determining the teachings as opposed to cultural traditions/superstitions?

pastebin.com/UpP9QBZJ

Probably should start with the Vinaya and Suttas before going to the Abhidhamma.
I saw a few videos of Bhante Dhammavuddho Mahathera reading the Dhiga Nikaya.
youtu.be/ilMCTfl715Q

Theravada buddhism is considered the most untainted form of buddhism. The emphasis is on self-enlightenment.
Mahayana puts more focus on helping others achieve enlightenment. It is more willing to fuse with other religious practices (think Tibetan buddhism and Zen and Chan Buddhism).

Here's a quick rundown
>biographyonline.net/spiritual/buddhism/theravada-mahayana.html

Free Princeton Buddhist Dictionary and Encyclopedia of Buddhism

daophatngaynay.com/vn/files/file-nen/Princeton_Dictionary_of_Buddhism_890707662.pdf
ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Encyclopedia of Buddhism_2 Vols_ Buswell.pdf

More here
ahandfulofleaves.org/Library.html

Sorry I was using inaccurate language I meant schools as in subschools rather than the three vehicles of attainment

>> 2596185
That's exactly what I was looking for!

Meant

Charts like these help memorize the numerative concepts in Asian belief systems.

Shingon: Japanese Esoteric Buddhism
selfdefinition.org/tantra/Yamasaki-Shingon-Japanese-Esoteric-Buddhism.pdf

youtu.be/--A-5Dxmf74
youtu.be/nQqi5oyQB4M

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachikawa-ryu
westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html

boy, buddhists sure love numbered lists

or is that just a western thing and we are ruining their entire religion/philosophy?

You see it in Asian historical traditions as well; the Three Kingdoms, Sixteen Kingdoms, Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms.

must be a human thing

to be honest it seems like a very good way to keep track of all the things they want to keep track of

I wish there was a system like this for western philosophy

Each of the yanas offers a complete path to enlightenment, it's just a matter of how long it takes.

Nyingma is often considered one of the 'practice schools' together with Kagyu, and the main practice is dzogchen with its unique tantras.

how long do you meditate?
what do you do as meditation?

For a beginner 20 minutes a day is plenty. However long you do it you should make an effort to do it every day, never skip.
There are many different kinds of meditation loving-kindness meditation, mindfullness meditation, etc. Your local sangha should offer guided meditation classes which would be good as you can get face to face advice from monks. There's also youtube videos of guided meditation you can use.

Ingram has finished with mctb2
dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5943042

Its probably because it makes it easier to learn them which considering its heavy oral tradition makes sense

Have you had any experience with the other Tibetan schools or the Theravada ones?

Are there any interesting meditation practices or techniques unique to Therevada?

I started meditating back in October and since then I've made decent progress in TMI, probably nowadays centering around stage 7 in TMI. I've had a few cessation experiences which I've discussed with my teacher which I didn't think were really meaningfull until recently after a few months have passed I've noticed some fundamental differences in my relation to the world. Whether these are just a result of being obsessed with meditation and Dharma or actually paradigm shifts I'm not sure, but the change from how I used to be is big enough that it's worth asking. I will probaly discuss this with my teacher as these changes are beoming more apparent.

The first big event (not sure if it was really a cessation) there was a definite strobing in an out of what seemed to be all sensate experience during a period of non-conceptual observance of the breath. Like all perception was vibrating in and out. I was then rocketed through space into a luminous orb and as I passed though the barrier-like brightness there was a bliss wave more intense than any Jhanas I've accessed so far. This was a couple months back and I just put it down as a peak experience.

Then there was one sit where I had multiple blips, one after another, which I can only describe as gaps in all perception. It was subtle and only noticed after the fact that definetely there was a period (not sure how long but likely brief) where there was just a gap. Totallly without warning or anything, just a simple gap. If want to say the mind tried to put some sort of clicking noise on the experience to fill it in, but I'm not sure I actually heard a click. Again I mentioned this to my teacher and we wrote it off because it seemed pretty insignificant.

The most recent event was a very bright flash during choiceless awareness during a period of what seemed to be very A&P like phenomena occurring, there was a fast cascade of distinct sensations, I was begginning to see clearly the begginning and ending of each sensation and experiencing how when one sensation was percieved, nothing else was percieved in that exact moment but the one sensation. During this period the flask occured and there was an abundance of electrical energy sensations released and also a click-like label created by the mind perhaps without an actual click (this was during the flash). I only mention the flash event because I've heard of something called a luminous cessation here and there and wasn't sure if this description lines up.

The most recent one was less flashy but still cool, so I came out of 1st Jhana (only recently been accessible for me) and started doing some choiceless awareness when my perception shifted and the sense of phenomena being "me" or part of "me" was very clearly not there temporarily. It was as if I was observing phenomena as ripples in my consciousness from the viewpoint of an outside observer. There was no identification and a very obvious separation. This was really cool and calm, the observer was totally impartial and profoundly still despite the pitti and prana flowing, and I tried to dwell there further and investigate this state but I was forced to end my session.

My inclination is to write these off as merely experiences and phenomena, but after reading about what happens when someone stream enters, it's my understanding that a cessation event is usually involved.

Anyway, in daily life I have noticed almost a complete elimination of future/career planning, which is totally against my nature as I've always been a worry wort and planner. My concern with what other people think of me is also notably reduced. There's been an increase in suffering involved with specifically feeling like everything in ordinary conventional reality is just a game based on delusion, and therefore motivation for worldly pursuits is very hard to come by and only comes out of neccesity or fear of failure. I think (know) the dharma is real, and I was raised Christian so theres been an increase in suffering around this issue that wasn't there before. In esscese, I feel as though I'm partly going crazy, and partly giving up on caring what everyone thinks. Normal job stressors that used to stress me out before are different in that I just don't care enough anymore to identify with it.

Anyway, I'm not sure what's going on but it's definetely something and I thought I would ask everyone here in case I'm totally off base. Please feel free to tell me it's not stream entry, my gut says its probaly not, but definetely something.

Sounds fucking groovy.
However, the first thing to note is that
>increase in suffering involved with specifically feeling like everything in ordinary conventional reality is just a game based on delusion

...While it is good to question convention, you are clinging to the idea that breaking convention makes you a better person. Whilst it does (in a way), it also doesn't (in a way), and one has to accept this contradiction
For the rest, it is way out of my expertise. Again, it would be best to explain it to your teacher

Mate, you should see the Abhidharma literature. A notable scholar of Buddhism told me that the idea of analysis into numbered lists comes firstly from the fact that most of this stuff was written down hundred of years after the supposed dating of the Buddha's life so numbering works as a mnemonic aid during the stage of oral transition. Secondly, the superfluous explosion of lists happened, however, because if you're a Buddhist monk, living with hundreds of other Buddhist monks, isolated from society in a monastery, trying to cultivate detachment, then what are you going to do all day? Meditate and reflect on reality. One reality starts being analysed into more and more detailed list, the process can be repeated almost indefinitely.

The development as he saw it was as soon as you get to numbered lists, there's a definitive divergence from the 'authentic', original teachings.

Im reading the Damma pada which I took from a temple in Thailand

very good stuff

simple concise

>I wish there was a system like this for western philosophy
Kant tried to systematise all his philosophy into uniform categories and most think it was a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Interesting what type of buddhism/lineage is your teacher from?

What books did you read before or during?

...

>buddhism is an atheist religion
>like how science will redo an experiment to assure a just conclusion.

youtube.com/watch?v=aCA6ioTLw-Q

How does Daniel Ingram having powers contrary to you makes you feel?
soundcloud.com/buddhistgeeks/a-pragmatists-take-on-the-powers
please comment

Anyone else currently listening to Ajahn Sumedho's teachings? He's a Korean war vet who became a Buddhist monk. Most of his Dhamma talks are online for free.

That video is pretty shitty in assuming that Mahayana = Pure Land Buddhists. That would be akin to doing a video on Christianity and using Mormons as the representation of Protestantism.

all you need is the heart sutra. The rest lies upon seeing the world as impermanent and empty along with dedication and will-power to forgo all worldly things to meditate. If you don't have the dedication to follow it I suggest not even calling yourself anything.

Because China loves its math.

Buddhism has various levels.

The lowest is simply commoners. They pray, worship, believe in dieties, etc.

The highest is ofcourse the Buddhas/Arhants/etc

In the middle there are people who are scholars, philosophers, etc.

While most people are not the middle kind, most people you meet will be commoners, lowest grade. The middle of the pack is where the books/articles/magazines are written by/for.

Internet adds to human knowledge (for most). In this case, the knowledge of scholars are spread to many people on the internet. This is where we get the Buddhism is "atheism" idea.

But here's the thing. Buddhism is a living religion. Its not atheism. For the mass, its a religion that has dieties and reincarnation and saviors.

For the middle of the pack, if you're well versed, things like gods/heaven/hell/etc all become meaningless (to a point). This is where people get the idea of atheism. The buddhist textual understand leads to contradictions with understandings of god/s. Things like three marks of existence, dependent-originations, emptiness, etc doesn't allow for God. Any one of them separately can exclude God from the world.

So to answer your question shortly, Buddhism does include literal deities and Buddhism does not include literal deities, it depends on where your understanding of Buddhism is at and where you want to go at.

Reminder that only normies care about self or non-self. What matters is craving and self is nothing but some craving.

You can believe in them but it's not required. The Buddha believed in gods but didn't give them much thought, as Indian gods aren't all powerful, they are also subject to the same laws of Karma as humans.

Its Asian autism in general. Be it East Asian or Indians, both have high reverence of numbers.

Buddhism is the Buzzfeed of religions.

whered you get that picture of the dalai lama?

...

hey plebbbit

Culadasa *live* on BATGAP, Saturday 4/1 at 4:30pm EDT (batgap.com)

submitted 1 day ago by heartsutraTeacher in training - announcement

batgap.com/future-interviews/upcoming-interviews/

Also, reminder that you can get enlightened when you take a roastie. Where your buggha now?

amazon.com/Transcendent-Sex-When-Lovemaking-Opens/dp/0743482174

s3.amazonaws.com/dharmatreasure/20130322--what-the-buddha-thought--handout.pdf

I NTRODUCTION TO
W HAT THE B UDDHA T HOUGHT
What the Buddha taught, in his own words, was “Suffering, and the end of suffering.” He had no
intention of establishing a religion, nor of teaching philosophy, cosmology, and metaphysics, and he
said so repeatedly.
As it turns out, though, the end of suffering involves a kind of wisdom that encompasses both
the nature of human experience, and the ultimate nature of reality. And the end of suffering, the
nature of human experience, and the ultimate nature of reality are key issues in religion, philosophy,
cosmology and metaphysics. Thus there was no way for him to guide people towards the end of
suffering without broaching topics associated with all those domains. As a result, beginning even
before he died, people have been turning his wisdom teachings into religions, and have used them as
the foundation for a variety of philosophies, cosmologies, and metaphysical descriptions of reality.
As the Buddhadharma becomes more widely known and appreciated in the West, we are
attracted by many insights that have direct application to our 21 st century experience. Inevitably, we
find ourselves looking to these teachings for answers to our own religious, philosophical, and
metaphysical questions. Before we do so, though, we need to try to understand, as clearly as we
possibly can, what the Buddha himself actually thought. This means stripping the Buddhist teachings
we have received of all the religious and philosophical baggage that has been added in other times by
other cultures.
A question that often comes up is, “How can we know if something we read or hear about
Buddhism really reflects the Buddha’s own teachings.” On the one hand, it’s not easy to know for
sure, but at the same time, there are several tools we can use. I will point out three of them here.

First of all, when delivering his first teaching to his former companions, who were quite
familiar with the various spiritual teachings of the times, he said,
“There arose in me the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the insight, the illumination
concerning things not heard before. ”
Therefore, any doctrine that belongs to another, non-Buddhist tradition, and most especially any
religious teaching that was widely accepted prior to the Buddha’s birth, should automatically be
considered suspect.
Second, the genuine teachings of the Buddha display an astonishing level of internal
consistency. Any time you come upon an inconsistency, one side or the other of it needs to be
discarded or reinterpreted in a way that brings about a return to consistency. When you must choose
between two statements, always choose the one that is most consistent with everything else the
Buddha said and did.

Finally, recall that the Buddha was hesitant to teach following his Awakening, thinking to
himself:
Upasaka Culadasa 03/22/2013 “What the Buddha Thought” 2
“This Dhamma that I have attained is profound and hard to see, hard to discover… not
attainable by mere ratiocination, subtle, for the wise to experience… If I taught this Dhamma
others, would not understand me, and that would be wearying and troublesome for me.
Enough of teaching the Dhamma
That even I found hard to reach;
For it will never be perceived
By those who live in lust and hate.
Men dyed in lust, and whom a cloud
Of darkness laps, will never see
What goes against the stream, is subtle,
Deep and hard to see, abstruse.”

Fortunately, the Buddha decided to go ahead and teach anyway. But anything that seems too
simple, too easy to grasp without serious reflection, may at the very least be an over-simplification.
At worst, it may be a doctrine that has crept in from another religion. At the same time, remember
that the Buddha’s thinking is subtle rather than complex. Anything that is intellectually convoluted
and complicated probably did not originate with the Buddha either. What makes the real teaching of
Buddha difficult to understand at times is that it is so very different from the way we are used to
thinking of things. All of the logic behind the Buddha’s teachings is very straightforward, but it does
require us to let go of some fundamental assumptions. If we are not willing to do that, the teachings
will seem impenetrable. And if we try to distort those teachings to fit preconceived ideas, we will find
ourselves immersed in all kinds of elaborate rationalizations.

Suffering and the End of Suffering: The Four Noble Truths
With regard to suffering, the Buddha distinguished between unpleasant experiences that originate in
the body, and the kind of displeasure and unhappiness that is mental in origin. He pointed out that it
is actually the mind’s reaction to unpleasant bodily sensations that makes physical pain into a source
of suffering. And furthermore, every kind of suffering we experience other than physical pain is
generated entirely by the mind. The significance of this is that, although illness, injury, aging and
death are inevitable, and it’s not within our power to keep them from afflicting our bodies, we
potentially have much greater power and influence over what happens in our minds. We can sum this
up by saying, “Pain is inevitable, but (with the proper mental training) suffering is optional.” This is
called The Truth about Suffering.
The Buddha goes on to point out that resistance to what is, wanting things to be different than
they are, is associated with every instance of suffering. He further points out that, when we find
ourselves suffering, if we can identify specifically what it is we are resisting and let go of that
resistance, the suffering disappears in the same moment. This can be summed up by saying, “Craving
for things to be different than they are is the root cause of all suffering.” This is called The Truth
about the Cause of Suffering.
With regard to the end of suffering, the Buddha tells us that our craving is driven by
ignorance and delusion. So long as we are trapped in delusion, our craving will continue without end,
and so will our suffering. But ignorance can be eliminated through a profound Wisdom that
overcomes the delusion we are trapped by. Once we are freed from delusion, both craving andsuffering cease as well. In other words, “When Wisdom brings about the complete and permanent
end of craving, there is also a complete and permanent end to suffering.”

The Buddha outlined a Path with eight parts leading to that Wisdom: 1. Right Understanding,
2. Right Intention, 3. Right Speech, 4. Right Action, 5. Right Livelihood, 6. Right Effort, 7. Right
Concentration, and 8. Right Mindfulness. This is usually described as, “The Eightfold Path to the End
of Suffering,” and is also known as The Truth about the Path to the End of Suffering.
The Eightfold Path
The Eightfold Path is divided into three parts: The first division consists of Right Understanding and
Right Intention. It provides an intellectual understanding of the Wisdom that overcomes ignorance,
and so this division is called Wisdom. Here the Buddha lays out in detail his own observations about
the way things really are, and asks us to verify the truth of these observations by carefully
investigating and reflecting upon our own experience. This is where the foundation is laid for the next
two divisions.

The second division of the Path, called Virtue, consists of Right Speech, Right Action, and
Right Livelihood. These are practices performed in the course of daily life in order to change our
conditioned ways seeing and reacting to things. Basically, by practicing Virtue we condition
ourselves away from the wrong views and understandings that derive from our ignorant and deluded
view of reality.

The third division is Meditation, consisting of Right Effort, Right Concentration and Right
Mindfulness. These are the mind-training practices that allow us to have the sort of experiences that
validate the Truths we have studied and understood intellectually. The combined effect of all three
divisions, all eight parts of the Eightfold Path is that we achieve an intuitive realization of the
Wisdom that ends ignorance, craving, and suffering.
We will learn about what the Buddha thought by studying the Buddha’s teachings on the
Wisdom division of the Path. These are the same thoughts that have been used in formulating various
Buddhist religious philosophies and metaphysical systems over the ages. Please keep in mind when
examining the source teachings, that the Buddha’s primary purpose was always more practical rather
than theoretical. This is reflected in the different ways of speaking and the different philosophical and
religious assumptions he entertained when talking to different people – warriors and kings,
merchants, uneducated lay people, his own disciples, Brahmins, followers of other teachers, and so
forth. It is easy to assume that he agreed with the religious beliefs of the people he was speaking to,
simply because he didn’t contradict them. But this is not necessarily the case. Quite often, rather than
challenging the beliefs someone already held and pronouncing some sort greater truth, he simply met
people where they were and tried to guide them to a better, deeper understanding. This can be
confusing for someone who comes along later searching in these many and varied teachings for
information of an absolute nature. Thus the Buddha’s teachings must always be interpreted in the
context they were given, taking into account who he was talking to, and the point he was making at
the time. Nevertheless, if we are careful, we can still get a pretty good idea of what the Buddha really
thought.

W HAT THE B UDDHA T HOUGHT
Dependent Arising I
At the very core of the Buddha’s teaching we find the idea of Dependent Arising. Whenever you
encounter this term, it will be used in one of two ways: either to describe an overarching general
principle — that all things arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions; or as a specific
description of a key mental process — namely the “twelve links of dependent arising.” Here we
address Dependent Arising in its more general form.
We begin our discussion of what the Buddha thought with Dependent Arising because, in
both its general and specific usages, it is the basis for the other uniquely Buddhist concepts of karma,
rebirth, the way suffering is perpetuated, and the possibility of liberation from suffering through the
realization of impermanence, emptiness, and no-self. These are “uniquely Buddhist concepts” in that,
although they share common terminology with other belief systems, these terms take on a completely
different meaning in the Buddha’s teachings of them. Unfortunately, this creates a great potential for
misunderstanding, and indeed these misunderstandings have become quite widespread within the
many different religions commonly described as “Buddhism.”
Dependent Arising in the general sense is expressed in the simple formula:
When this is, that is.
When this arises, that arises.
When this isn’t, that isn’t.
When this ceases, that ceases.

To most of us today, this just seems like common sense. Nevertheless, very few of us fully
appreciate all of the implications of these simple statements. The Buddha was very aware of how
difficult it is for people to fully understand Dependent Arising. The Ven. Ananda once told the
Buddha he found the doctrine of Dependent Arising evident and easy to comprehend. The Buddha
replied,
“Ananda, do not say so. The doctrine of dependent arising is so profound that sentient beings
are unable to comprehend it. They are unable to understand what I teach because they are
unable to perceive the process of dependent arising. Consequently, they are perplexed just like
with a ball of entangled thread, a jumble of munja grass. They cannot free themselves from
suffering, states of deprivation, degeneration, and transmigration.”
The subtle implications of Dependent Arising are as follows:
1. Nothing stands outside of cause and effect.
In other words, anything that happens has a cause. No exceptions. Nothing can happen
without a cause.
Furthermore, anything that happens produces effects. Always. Nothing that happens is ever
without consequences.
Therefore, anything that appears to be “supernatural” or “magic” only appears that way because
we don’t fully understand the causes. The laws of causality are never violated.

2. All that arises due to causes and conditions must also pass away.
When the cause is absent, there can be no effect. When there is no effect, it is because there is
no cause.
When the cause ceases, so does the effect. When the effect ceases, it is because the cause has
ceased.
Everything, therefore, is impermanent.
3. Anything that arises does so in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions.
We usually think of cause and effect in a linear relationship, with one cause leading to one
effect. But any real event actually involves the simultaneous presence of multiple causes and
conditions.
And if we enumerate all of the immediate causes and conditions necessary for a particular
effect, each of those in turn depends upon multiple causes and conditions.
And so on it goes, in an ever-widening web of causality.
Each individual thing or event is the nexus of a massive causal convergence.
4. Causes and effects always arise together.
We usually think of cause and effect as two separate entities, with the cause always preceding
the effect.
But the potential effect is already present in each contributing cause, even before all of the
other necessary causes and conditions have arisen. And all of the contributing causes are
inherently present within every effect. Cause and effect are not separate entities, arising and
passing away in sequence.
Rather, they are part of a continuous process, with every contributing cause and every
possible effect inherently present in every part of the process.
The arising and passing away of separate “things” is an illusion. There is just a single, continuous
process.

5. Everything, everywhere is causally interconnected.
Because causality is a single continuous process, and because absolutely everything has
multiple causes and conditions, and because absolutely everything produces multiple
consequences, everything is interdependent with everything else.
Dependent Arising is sometimes called Interdependent Co-arising for this very reason.
Absolutely everything and everyone is an interpenetrating, inseparable part of a single, indivisible,
causally interdependent whole, best conceived of as a process.
Most scientifically educated Westerners will find themselves perfectly at home with the
Dependent Arising as a general principle, yet few will have ever fully thought through the five
implications listed above, especially the last three.
As one Buddhist scholar, Rupert Gethin, has put it "…the secret of the universe lies in the
nature of causality—the way one thing leads to another.” Dependent Arising as a universal principle
was arrived at by the Buddha through a combination of logic and experience. We will come to
exactly the same conclusions if we carefully analyze our own experience of the world. It is not
possible, of course, to observe every possible event and examine its underlying causes. Nor is it
necessary. Later Buddhist logicians have provided rigorous logical support for this particular teaching
of the Buddha. But each of us needs to satisfy our self that it is true.

The Nature of the Individual Person
Who or what am I? Like so many others before and since, the Buddha, asked himself this question.
His answer has come down to us as the Five Aggregates: Consciousness, Form, Perceptions, Feeling,
and Mental Formations. Let’s do this same exercise for ourselves to see how the Buddha arrived at
the Five Aggregates as a description of a person.
The Aggregate of Consciousness (Viññāṇa Khandha).
If I seek to answer the question “What am I?” while making the fewest possible assumptions, the
most immediate answer is, “I am conscious.” There is no need to define consciousness beyond this
most obvious fact of subjective experience. Conscious of what? Conscious of this thought, this
question. I am also conscious of seeing shapes and colors, hearing sounds, feelings of warmth, touch,
pressure, and other bodily sensations. Other things that I can be conscious of include tastes and
smells, memories, emotions, and all manner of thoughts and ideas.
With a brief moment’s reflection, I realize that the entirety of my subjective existence, from
as far back as I can remember right up to the present moment, has consisted of similar instances of
consciousness. These appear to have occurred in a sequence, following rapidly upon one another, and
my life history is defined by this sequence. In a very real sense, “I am” this collection, this aggregate
of conscious experiences.

Every instance of consciousness that I observe or can recall is “consciousness of” something.
While consciousness itself is difficult to pin down and examine, all of these “objects of
consciousness” can be readily divided into categories and investigated further. Many of these objects
can be catalogued according to the traditional five senses: the seeing of visible objects; the hearing of
sounds; the feeling of the body and its movements, and of tactile sensations where tangible objects
contact the body; the smelling of odors; and the tasting of substances contacting the tongue. The rest
are different sorts of mental objects, such as thoughts and ideas, emotions, memories, mental images,
and so forth that are all known directly by the mind. These six categories (the five kinds of physical
sense objects plus mental objects) encompass every possible object of consciousness, and can be
grouped into two general types – the mental and the physical, mind and body (nama and rupa).
In other words, this aggregate of conscious experiences that constitutes my nature as an
individual person can be distinguished as consisting of mind and body. And I can further pursue the
question of “What am I?” on the basis of that distinction.

The Aggregate of Form (Rupa Khandha)
Objects of consciousness corresponding to the five senses are all material in nature and belong to the
physical domain. The sense organs by which they are known are part of the body, which is also
material in nature. Reflecting on this, I find a certain circularity here: Objects within the physical
domain are being known to the mind through other objects belonging to the physical domain.
When I examine what I actually know about these objects more closely, I find only
sensations. The various “objects” I perceive are merely ideas and concepts constructed by the mind to
make sense of those sensations. First come the sensations, then, so quickly as to seem instantaneous,
come the perceived objects. I really know nothing at all about material objects of any kind, the world
of form in general, or even my own body, except through sensation. From these sensations, my mind
has constructed an image of a body with its sense organs, right along with a whole world of other
material objects.
Realizing this, I can now more accurately describe that part of my self I experience as my
body. It is another collection, an aggregate of sensations this time.
The Aggregate of Perceptions (Sanna Khandha)
I now realize that I haven’t been experiencing events and objects out there “in the world” at all. All of
the material objects I thought I was perceiving are actually mental objects my mind has concocted to
account for sensations that I experience. My mind assembles colors and shape into visual objects,
combining them with auditory, tactile, and other sensations to produce these perceptions.
I have now identified another important part of the answer to the question “What am I?” It is
yet another collection, an aggregate of mental constructs I can call perceptions.

The Aggregate of Feelings (Vedana Khandha)
Running as a constant theme throughout the continuing stream of my moment-to-moment conscious
experiences, I notice pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings. Some sensations are pleasant, others
unpleasant, and still others are neither. The same is true of thoughts, memories, and other mental
objects – some are pleasant, others unpleasant, while still others are neutral. These feelings, I realize,
are just another kind of mental object, yet another construct of the mind.
I am, in part, this aggregate of feelings that accompanies every other kind of experience I
have.
The Aggregate of Mental Formations (Sankhara Khandha)
Both perceptions and feelings are components of my conscious experience that are generated by my
own mind. But when I reflect on it, my mind is constantly producing a whole variety of other mental
objects that get presented as objects of consciousness. These include things like concepts, ideas, and
the thoughts that get elaborated out of those concepts and ideas. Memories of past events, imaginative
fantasies, and projections about the future are other examples of mental formations. And emotions are
yet another kind of conscious experience that comes directly from the mind itself.
Thinking more deeply on it, I realize that there are many other mental formations that are an
important part of who I am, but that operate mostly in the background rather than appearing as
objects of consciousness. For example, all of my accumulated loves and hates, desires and aversions,
worries, hopes, fears, and the intentions that drive my behavior. Indeed, all of those characteristics
that I or someone else might describe as my “personality” are a kind of mental formation.

In other words, a very important part of who I am is this other great collection, this aggregate
of mental formations.
Taken together as a whole, these Five Aggregates fully account for me as an individual person
in mind and body, a psycho-physical entity active in the world. Yet within them, I find nothing that I
can legitimately claim as I, me, or mine. Moments of consciousness arise and pass away together
with their objects, whether those objects are sensations, perceptions, feelings, or other mental
formations. They are impermanent, and cannot be clung to, “owned,” or in any sense controlled.
There is nothing unique to me about the fact of being conscious. As far as I can tell, there are many
other conscious beings, and other than the objects of consciousness in the moment, there is nothing to
distinguish one consciousness from another.
As best I can discern, we all experience sensations, feelings, and perceptions that are more or
less similar, all of which are transient, and all of which arise and cease dependent upon causes and
conditions, whether we wish them to or not. Likewise for every other kind of mental formation. I
have no power over these Five Aggregates that “I am.” In all of this, there is nothing to cling to as
Self.
Yet at the same time, I am unique. The particular sequence in which objects of consciousness
have arisen and passed away in my mind is unique to me and me alone. The particular mental
formations that my mind has generated are likewise unique. In fact, each and every person, every
such collection of Aggregates in this or any other world, is totally unique, completely special, and
exquisitely precious.

The Three Characteristics
The ignorance that the Buddha identified at the root of craving is ignorance of three particular facts
that characterize human existence. These Three Characteristics are:
 Impermanence (anicca in Pali and anitya in Sanskrit)
 Dissatisfaction (dukkha in Pali and duhkha in Sanskrit)
 No-Self (anatta in Pali and anatman in Sanskrit)
The delusion corresponding to ignorance of the Three Characteristics is the mistaken belief that:
 we are separate, enduring entities in a world of other, separate, enduring entities, and
 our suffering and happiness depends upon what happens to us, upon our interactions with
these other entities.
The Wisdom that eradicates ignorance and overcomes delusion comes from Insight into the Three
Characteristics.
Impermanence
Impermanence refers to the fact that all conditioned things are in a constant state of flux [see #2 of
the five Implications of Dependent Arising].
We often act and react as though things are more permanent than they really are, becoming
upset and unhappy when they change, although we all know better. This kind of impermanence
requires no special insight to understand, even if it takes more insight than most of us have to live
accordingly. But the Buddha was pointing to a much more radical kind of impermanence that goes
entirely beyond this.
In reality, there are no “things” at all. Not even temporarily existing “things” that briefly come
into being and then pass away again due to causes and conditions. Ultimately, there is only flux [see
Implication #4 of Dependent Arising], and the mere appearance of things arising and passing away
in the process of changing from one form to another. But make no mistake, this does not mean that
“nothing exists.” It means, rather, that there is only pure process. This is the middle way of the
Buddha that avoids extreme views such as “all exists” and “nothing exists.”

No-Self
No-Self is the denial that there is some individual essence to a person, a true Self, or Atta, or Atman.
There is, of course, the unique and constantly changing complex of psychophysical processes, of
mental and physical phenomena, the mind and body that we ordinarily identify as a person. But there
is no single, separate, enduring entity apart from that.
Knowing that we will die, the very belief in a separate Self causes us to suffer at the prospect,
and though the answer can never be known, the question of what happens after death assumes great
importance. Are we born to struggle and suffer through life, only to be annihilated at death? Some
form of continued existence may at first seem preferable. But for those who believe in a continuously
reincarnated Self, the prospect soon becomes one of an endless, lonely suffering, forever separate
from and in constant conflict with all that is Other. This is so horrible to contemplate that, prior to the
coming of the Buddha, the highest spiritual goal of many was to find an escape from the endless
cycle of reincarnation. Often this meant spiritual practices specifically intended to bring about
annihilation of the Self at death. On the other hand, those who believe the Self is inevitably
annihilated at death, regardless of what we do, often tend towards an amoral nihilism and hedonism.
The other, truly major problem associated with the belief in a separate Self is that it is
accompanied by the belief that happiness and suffering are the result of what happens to the Self.
This makes the boundary between Self and Other into a battle line. The Self must constantly strive to
obtain the things and create the circumstances that bring happiness and satisfaction, struggling
against other separate Selves in order to do so. Likewise for the avoidance of all those things and
circumstances that cause the Self to suffer. But this takes us back to the first two of the Buddha’s

Likewise,
happiness also comes from within, from the mind itself, not from what we possess or from what
happens to us. There can be no end to suffering before the Truth of No-Self has been realized.
The notion that there is a Self that exists apart from the mental and physical phenomena we
call a person is called eternalism (regardless of whether that Self is thought to last forever or for just
some finite period of time). Eternalism is the basis for the belief in a Self or soul that survives after
death. However, as we have seen, each individual thing or event, including an individual person, is
the nexus of a massive causal convergence [Implication #3]. And all that arises due to causes and
conditions is impermanent and must also pass away [Implication #2]. Furthermore, separate “things,”
including a separate Self, are just an illusion. Ultimately, there is only process [Implication #4].
However, it would be a mistake to think that the No-Self doctrine just makes the Self into a
set of mental and physical processes, rather than a separate entity. If that were the case, then when
those processes end at death, the Self would cease to exist. This is no different than saying that the
Self is just the body and mind, and that this Self ceases to exist when the body dies. That is called
annihilationism, and is just as much a wrong view as eternalism. Both eternalism and annihilationism
are wrong views that the Buddha repeatedly us warned against.

The No-Self doctrine is far more radical, and ultimately far more appealing, than either of
these mistaken views. It states that there is no Self either to survive or be annihilated at death, simply
because no such Self exists now, ever has existed, or ever could exist. If we look at the notion of
Upasaka Culadasa 03/22/2013 “What the Buddha Thought” 10
selfhood more closely, we see that it has no meaning except in contrast to something that is not Self,
that is other than self. The very essence of Self is duality and separateness, so to be a Self is to be
separate. Yet we have seen that absolutely everything and everyone, including an individual person,
is an interpenetrating, inseparable part of a single, indivisible, causally interdependent whole
[Implication #5]. In this wholistic view of reality, there is no room for separate processes that come to
an end independently of the whole.
For those who have realized the truth of No-Self, there is no need to ask what happens after
the death of the body. Indeed, the Buddha steadfastly refused to answer all such questions, suggesting
they were pointless and a waste of time. However, speaking in the common idiom of the day, since
the goal of spiritual practice was so often the end of cyclic reincarnation, the achievement of
Awakening was commonly referred to as having achieved the “final birth” and the “end of rebirth.”
As we shall see later, the Buddha often used popular terminology, changing the meaning to suit his
own teaching. When we examine the specific application of Dependent Arising known as the
“Twelve Links,” we will find that the very idea of rebirth has been given a new, very different
meaning than reincarnation. Thus the “end of rebirth” also comes to mean something totally different.

Emptiness
Although not originally articulated as such by the Buddha, Emptiness is a more all-embracing term
that combines the Truths of Impermanence and No-Self. Emptiness refers to the fact that all things,
including the Self, are Empty of self-existence, and Empty of self-nature.
All appearance of “thingness” is an illusion, projected by the mind onto different aspects of a
single, interconnected process in its indivisible wholeness. What we call “things” are nothing more
than momentary convergences of causes and conditions, continuously evolving nexuses of causal
relationships. And a “momentary nexus” has no independent existence either. Remember, the reality
is that any such nexus belongs to a totally interconnected whole, and so anywhere you look in that
reality, you will find such a causal nexus [Implication #3 of Dependent Arising]. Like an eye looking
through a tube at a piece of empty sky, the mind looking through the sense organs designates a
particular causal convergence, out of an infinity of such convergences, as an object in any particular
moment. Each such nexus is real and unique, “existing” in dependence upon causes and conditions.
But its independent existence, its separateness, is an illusion projected upon it by the mind.

In other words, the “existence” of separate “things,” such as they are, depends not only upon
causes and conditions, but upon the perceiving mind as a cause as well. Our subjective experience of
a “thing” is called a dhamma. Dhammas are mental phenomena, created by the mind, and existing
only in the mind. The actual content of any particular dhamma is also created by the mind and exists
only in the mind. 1 This is what it means to say that, “all things are Empty of self-existence.” But
that does not mean that dhammas are not real. Just that the specific contents, the objects of conscious
experience, have no separate existence outside of the mind. And that applies to the personal Self as
well. Nor does it mean that “nothing exists outside of the mind.” There is an Ultimate Reality. We are
a part of that Ultimate Reality, and it is the source of our sensory experiences. It is just that we cannot
know that Ultimate Reality in itself. All we can ever know are the mental representations, the
“stories” fabricated by the mind to account for those experiences.

In each instance in which the mind imposes thingness, it takes the information provided by
the sense organs and organizes and labels it in a way that makes it meaningful to the mind. That
meaningfulness is then the perceived “nature” of the thing. Different minds will impute different
natures to the same sense objects, and so will the same mind impute different natures to the same
object at different times. This is what it means to say that, “all things are Empty of self-nature.”
The mind creates its own reality, and imputes a nature to that reality. This does not mean that
Ultimate Reality has no self-nature of its own. It simply means that Ultimate Reality is Empty of any
other, mind-imputed nature. In other words, the nature of Ultimate Reality is not what it appears to
the mind to be, and can never be known directly to the mind. But this doesn’t mean we can’t know
anything about the nature of Ultimate Reality. Dependent Arising, Impermanence, and Emptiness are
all very important things that we know about Ultimate Reality through inference.

Dissatisfaction
Dissatisfaction refers to the fact that life, by its very nature, is difficult, flawed, and imperfect. Deep,
lasting satisfaction, true happiness, complete freedom from suffering can never be achieved so long
as we misunderstand the nature of human experience and the true nature of reality. 2

The mind-created contents of dhammas, and the dependently arising reality they attempt to
represent can never be the source of more than the most fleeting pleasures. That which is
impermanent, fabricated by the mind, and devoid of any self-nature of being what it appears to be can
never bring happiness. So long as the mind posits the objects of experience as real in themselves,
grasping to them as sources of happiness or seeking to avoid them as the cause of suffering, the result
will be dissatisfaction. A mind that perceives itself as being, or being part of, a separate Self, will
always be in a state of perpetual and futile struggle with what it perceives to be Other. The fact of
Dependent Arising means that all attempts to control what happens to us are doomed to fail. But it is
the very nature of our human minds that we perceive ourselves as separate, and that we assume that
our transient states of happiness and suffering are the result of our interactions with other separate
entities. It is only by transcending our nature through the wisdom that Insight brings, and by
abandoning the delusion that leads to craving, that we can ever find true and lasting happiness.
Karma
The belief in karmic retribution was very widespread in India, and had already been around for a
long, long time before the Buddha. The belief in reincarnation was also very widespread, and had
also been around for a very long time. We need to take an historical look at the form of these ideas
prior to the Buddha’s arrival on the scene in order to appreciate how he transformed them.
The theory of karmic retribution was quite straightforward: That every action has
consequences is an obvious fact, well-known to everyone. Karmic retribution refers quite specifically

to consequences that reflect the moral quality of an action. People are constantly doing things that are
good or bad to some degree or another. And all kinds of different, seemingly random, things happen
to people, some of which are beneficial and others are harmful. The theory of karmic retribution
simply links these two together to make the world a fair and just place. According to this theory, the
consequences of morally good actions are beneficial events that reward the performer of those good
acts. Likewise, morally evil actions produce painful consequences. It is a simple step from here to an
all-embracing theory of karma in which everything that happens is the moral consequence of good or
bad actions done in the past. Once a person understands how karma works, then they also know what
they need to do to insure a happy existence in the future.
This theory of karmic retribution had a major problem, though. People are often seen to
benefit from cruel and unjust actions, while just, kind and generous behavior often appears to go
unrewarded. Bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. Reincarnation
resolves this problem, since it allows karmic acts and karmic consequences to happen in different
lives. Out of necessity, the notions of reincarnation and karmic retribution came to be tightly linked.
Not only did the “law” of karma require reincarnation in order for it to make any sense, but karma
came to be seen as the actual cause of reincarnation.

This combination of karma and reincarnation helped make sense of what otherwise seems an
arbitrary and unjust world. It gave an easily grasped method for achieving health, wealth, and
happiness, provided a solid rational for behaving morally, and made the inevitability of death a little
bit more palatable. But it still left a lot to be desired. This life in this world continues to be full of
suffering. And even if, through understanding the law of karma, a person makes good karma for their
next life, they won’t remember having done so. Thus they may very well end up squandering the
fruits of their good karma while creating more bad karma for themselves out of ignorance. Not only
that, but with the accumulated bad karma of an uncountable number of past lives, there is a lot of
suffering yet to be harvested. One only needs to look around to see that life is pervaded by many
different forms of suffering, beginning with birth, and continuing with loss, injury, sickness, aging
and death.
The suffering of this life together with the continuing cycle of birth, suffering, death, and
rebirth (perhaps better described as the cycle of “suffering, death, rebirth, more suffering, and re-
death”) came to be known as Samsara. By the time of the Buddha’s birth, the goal of many, if not
most, spiritual and religious traditions in India had become liberation from karmic retribution and an
escape from the “wheel of Samsara,” the perpetual process of reincarnation. In other words, the
common theme of many different religions before the Buddha ever spoke his first word was
“liberation from samsara.” This liberation occurred only after death had terminated this present life,
was considered quite difficult to achieve, and might well not be attained for many, many lifetimes to
come.

If this all sounds very much like the way you’ve heard Buddhists describe karma, you are
right. That being the case, you should be asking, “So is this really the Buddha’s teaching on karma,
and if not, how does his real teaching differ from what preceded him?” That is precisely what we
want to look at here. There is a subtlety to the Buddha’s version of karma that is far too easily and too
often missed by even the most ardent Buddhists.
For starters, the Buddha himself did not achieve his liberation after death. Rather, he became
fully Awakened, completely liberated from Samsara at age 35, and continued to live and teach in the world for 45 more years! This notion of achieving liberation while still alive and active in the world
was quite revolutionary. In fact, the first person who met the Buddha after his Awakening, an ascetic
monk named Upaka, noticed there was something very special about him and asked about it. When
the Buddha told him he was fully Awakened, that person just scoffed and walked away shaking his
head. No one but fools ever said such silly things! The scoffer would have been much more
comfortable talking with later Tibetan or Theravadan Buddhists who would agree that Awakening is
extremely rare and takes many, many lifetimes of arduous effort to achieve!
But the Buddha spent 45 years not only telling everyone that Awakening can be achieved in
this life, but guiding thousands of people to succeed in doing it for themselves. He taught that anyone
who followed his method could be liberated in this very life, not after death, and certainly not after
some uncountable number of future lives. For that matter, the Buddha discouraged anyone from even
thinking about where we come from or what happens after death. He considered such questions a
waste of time and a distraction from the only matter of real importance, which is liberation from
suffering, and Awakening in this life.

Furthermore, after his Awakening the Buddha is said to have dwelt thereafter in the perfection
of Nirvana. So for those 45 years between his Awakening and his final passing, Nirvana took the
form of a human existence in this very world. This is very different from the pre-Buddhist view that
identified this life and this world as Samsara. The Buddha’s example tells us that the difference
between Samsara and Nirvana has nothing to do with whether or not you are in human form, and
whether or not you live in this world. Liberation and Nirvana are NOT about escaping from this
world and this life. Rather, liberation from suffering and Awakening from ignorance allow you to
embrace life and live more fully. Notice the other important shift that has taken place: Nirvana, has
been entirely internalized. Nirvana has nothing to do with where you are and the outward form of
your existence.
Now back to karma. It is very difficult to reconcile Dependent Arising with the idea that
everything that happens to you is a moral consequence of your past actions. This theory of karma
would have absolutely everything depend upon a very limited set of causes. But one of the
implications of Dependent Arising is that anything that arises does so in dependence upon multiple
causes and conditions [Implication #3 of Dependent Arising]. Even if we restrict karma to the
specific moral consequences of certain specific moral acts, we have to somehow suspend every other
kind of causality that might otherwise interfere with the fulfillment of that karma. But another of the
implications of Dependent Arising is that nothing stands outside of cause and effect, that the laws of
causality are never violated [Implication #1].

The older theory of karmic retribution also leads us to focus on making good karma so that
good things will happen to us in the future, and avoiding bad karma so that bad things won’t happen.
This makes sense so long as we believe that good fortune always makes us happy, and misfortune
always causes suffering. But that just doesn’t fit with real life experience. Many very fortunate people
are unhappy, and vice versa. Furthermore, recall from the Truths of Suffering and the Cause of
Suffering, and from Dissatisfaction as one of the Three Characteristics, that suffering and happiness
are not about what happens to you. In fact, believing that suffering or happiness depend on what
happens to you is part of the delusion that causes suffering. Suffering and happiness are about how
your mind reacts to what happens to you. If this is true, then there is no guarantee that doing good
acts will bring happiness. Worse yet, the good acts we do motivated by the belief in and hope for
future rewards only reinforces the delusion that is at the very root of our suffering
With these problems in mind, let’s have a closer look at karma according to the Buddha. The
Buddha’s view of causality can be expressed as follows: The experience of the present is shaped by
intentions and actions in both the past and the present. Intentions and actions in the present shape
both the present and the future. The results of the intentions and actions of the past and present
continually interact. Notice that every statement includes both intentions and actions. As we shall see,
the special way the word karma is used in reference to intention is precisely what makes the
Buddha’s version of karma so very different from the older ideas of karmic retribution. Intentions and
actions are two distinct categories of causes. Thus it is very important that we not conflate or confuse
actions and intentions with each other, and that we clearly understand the differences between them.

Intention as Karma
Although the word karma literally means “action,” by the time of the Buddha it had come to mean,
very specifically, an action that produced moral consequences for the doer of the action. The Buddha
very famously redefined karma, saying:
“Intention I tell you is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and
mind.”
Redefining karma in this way makes a subtle but profound difference. Saying that karma is
NOT the action, but rather the intention behind the action means that the moral consequences result
from the intention, not the action. The action itself may produce all kinds of other effects on the doer
of the action, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither. But these are the result of material causality. They are
not moral consequences. The moral consequences are the result of a kind of mental causality that acts
directly on the mind of the intender.
Just as he did with Nirvana, the Buddha has moved both karma and its consequences out of
the material realm and into the mental realm. This allows actions and their consequences to obey the
laws of material causality according to Dependent Arising, and refocuses karma and its consequences
as an inner process. Furthermore, these moral consequences are unaffected by the success or failure
of the intended action. So long as the intention is there, the karmic result will be produced.

Actions and Intentions
We can distinguish two kinds of actions with respect to intention. First, there are involuntary reflex
actions that don’t involve intention. These are things like knee-jerks, the way you blink when
something is coming at your eye, and pulling your hand away when you touch something hot. The
other kind of action is intentional action. These actions are intentional in the sense that they always
involve some kind of conscious volition, either now or in the past.
Intention is the forerunner of all acts of speech and body except for purely reflex movements.
Granted, some intentional actions can become automatic. They can be so automatic that they seem
just like reflexes. But they are not reflexes, they are driven by unconscious intentions. But these
actions were not originally automatic, nor were the intentions behind them unconscious. So some
intentions are conscious, subject to reflection, evaluation, and modification before the action occurs.
Others are unconscious, automatically producing some act of body, speech or mind before we even
become aware of the intention. But before any intention can ever produce an action for the first time,
it must become a conscious intention. This means that any unconscious intention that produces an
automatic reaction in the present must have been a conscious intention at some other time in the past.

Actions only became automatic through conscious, intentional repetition, and so we can still say all
acts, even automatic ones, ultimate originate in conscious intention.
So intention causes action, but what is intention? We can define an intention as: An impulse,
towards a particular activity, that is directed towards a particular goal. Intentions are mental
formations that produce effects directly on the mind, and indirectly on the material world via the
body. Every movement of the mind – every thought, idea, and emotion – is a mental activity driven
by an intention, and it has some goal that it’s meant to achieve. Every word and every bodily action is
preceded by an intention as well, and just like movements of the mind, our words and actions are the
means to a specific end. Both the end goal and the means for achieving that goal are inherent within
the intention. For example, when you feel an itch, it is accompanied by an urge to scratch. The
scratching is the means, the relief of the itch is the goal.
How does karma as intention cause an increase or decrease in future suffering? The cause of
suffering is craving. The cause of craving is the ignorant view that we are a separate Self in a world
of Other, and that our happiness and unhappiness depend upon what we can get or avoid from the
world of Other. The goal and the means to achieving it inherent in any given intention has been
shaped by the operating worldview of the mind generating that intention.

Unwholesome intentions are rooted in ignorance of the Three Characteristics, and the
delusion corresponding to that ignorance. The motivating force behind unwholesome intentions
comes from craving as greed or aversion. When such an intention arises in consciousness, it will be
either blocked, modified, or else approved and allowed to give rise to an action. If it is approved in
consciousness, both the worldview it represents and the motivating force behind it are validated and
reinforced. Thus it is that unwholesome intentions deepen our ignorance and delusion, and make us
even more subject to the forces of greed and aversion in the future. Since ignorance and delusion are
the root of craving, and since craving is the cause of suffering, the karmic consequences of
unwholesome intentions are more suffering in the future.
Wholesome intentions are rooted in Wisdom, in Right Understanding, and are, therefore,
Right Intentions. Their motivating force is some form of non-greed and non-aversion, such as
generosity, loving-kindness, patience, and compassion. When such an intention is approved in
consciousness, Right Understanding is strengthened and ignorance and delusion are undermined. The
power craving holds over us is weakened, and we are less subject to suffering. Thus the karmic
consequences of wholesome intentions are not only less suffering in the future, but a movement
towards Nirvana and away from Samsara.

In other words, acts motivated by ignorance, desire and aversion rebound upon you by
strengthening ignorance and craving, making you more vulnerable to suffering in the future no matter
what happens to you. Conversely, acts motivated by unselfishness, harmlessness, generosity and
loving kindness rebound upon you by making you less vulnerable to suffering and more prone to
happiness, no matter what happens to you. It’s as simple as that.
The material consequences of good and bad actions in the world are not unimportant. What
actually happens to you is the result of physical, biological, and psychological causality, and certainly
depends, at least in part, upon what you say or do that evokes these kind of effects. But what happens
to you is not a moral consequence. The moral consequences of good and bad karma, which is to say
good and bad intentions, manifest not through what happens to you, but through the kind of personyou are that those things happen to. And who we are, the fruit of our karmic intentions, also has an
influence on what happens to us. Where we find ourselves, the circumstances we are in, the company
we keep, how we are thought of by others, and many other factors are determined by who we are as
well. But these, too, are worldly rather than moral consequences, and they, too, are the result of other
kinds of causality, not karma.
Good karma in the form of good intentions moves us in the direction of Nirvana and
liberation and away from suffering. Bad karma in the form of bad intentions moves us towards
Samsara and increased suffering. This is the law of karma taught by the Buddha. Viewed this way,
karma can be used as a powerful force to bring us closer to Awakening in this very life. And since
karma doesn’t negate other forms of causality, we have every bit as much reason as ever to work to
make positive change in the world through our actions.

Dependent Arising II: The Twelve Links
The “Links of Dependent Arising” refers to a series of specific mental events describing the cyclic
process by which ignorance perpetuates suffering. The Buddha spoke of this process on many
different occasions, and the number of “links” mentioned was not the same every time. However, by
comparing different discourses of the Buddha, we can assemble a total of twelve links that have since
come to be known as the Twelve Links of Dependent Arising. Following the formula, “when there is
this, there is that,” these twelve are:
When there is
1. Ignorance (avijjā in Pali, avidyā in Sanskrit), there are
2. Mental Formations (saṅkhāra in Pali, saṃskāra in Sanskrit).
When there are Mental Fabrications, there is
3. Consciousness (v iññāṇa in Pali, vijñāna in Sanskrit).
When there is Consciousness, there is
4. The Mind and Body of an Individual Person (n āmarūpa ), also know as the Five Aggregates
(panca khandha in Pali, pañca skandha in Sanskrit).
When there is Mind and Body, there is Consciousness. Notice how these two, Consciousness and
Mind and Body, “fold back” on each other in a relationship of mutual causality. (To better understand
this reciprocal relationship of mutual dependence, see the earlier section on The Nature of the
Individual Person.)
In the continuation of the sequence, when there is Mind and Body, there are
5. The Six Sense Bases (saḷāyatana in Pali, saḍāyatana in Sanskrit). (The mind sense and mental
objects constitute the sixth sense base.)
When there are Senses, there is
6. Contact (phassa in Pali, sparsa in Sanskrit).
When there is Contact, there is
7. Feeling (vedanā).
When there is Feeling, there is
8. Craving (taṇhā in Pali, tṛṣṇā in Sanskrit).
When there is Craving, there is
9. Clinging (upādāna). Clinging reifies the illusion of Self and Other that fuels Becoming.

Where there is Clinging, there is
10. Becoming (bhava).
Where there is Becoming, there is
11. Birth (jāti), the coming-to-be or coming-forth of an Individual Person (i.e. a return to links 3 &
4). This refers not to birth at the beginning of a lifetime, but to rebirth as new person following any
major change in life circumstances, such as the acquisition of a new status or position; upon
awakening from sleep each day; with each shift in preoccupation throughout the day; with each
movement of attention; and ultimately, with each new moment of consciousness.
Where there is Birth, there is
12. Aging, Death, and this Entire Mass of Suffering (jarāmaraṇa).
The first two links introduce us to the core cycle: Ignorance -> Craving -> Clinging ->
Ignorance. Ignorance gives rise to unwholesome karmic Mental Formations, which include
Craving, and the reification of deluded beliefs by Clinging, all of which perpetuates Ignorance.
The next eight links are an expansion of this basic description. Deluded mental formations
arising from ignorance become the objects of Consciousness of an individual person. An individual
person in the form of Mind and Body possesses Six Senses, which inevitably results in Contact
between sense organ and sense object. With contact comes a Feeling of pleasant, unpleasant, or
neutral. These feelings lead to the arising of Craving in the form of desire for the pleasant, aversion
towards the unpleasant, and dissatisfaction with what is neutral. Craving leads to Clinging, which
reifies the idea of a Self separate from the perceived object of desire, aversion, or dissatisfaction.
Clinging leads to Becoming, where the reified Self engages in action for the sake of satisfying
craving, and thus a suffering being, afflicted by craving, is reborn.

Links five through ten describe a cycle that repeats itself over and over again throughout
every day of our lives. The action produced by becoming results in the generation of new sense
objects, physical or mental, resulting in Contact, Feeling, Craving, Clinging, and a return to
Becoming, which then leads back to Contact once again. Through repeating cycles, individual
conscious events get woven together to become episodes in a day in the life of the “person” born
from this causal process.
The last two links form a sort of summary: Each repetition of the cycle leads to the “re-birth”
of a separate Self, burdened with its load of unwholesome karmic formations, which must then play
itself out in the form of suffering before triggering the next repetition of the same Samsaric cyclic.
The Buddha presented this process as a continuously recurring in our minds, moment by
moment, hour by hour, and day by day. Once again, the Buddha had taken a popular notion, the
endless cycle of reincarnation in this case, and redefined it, shifting it from the material plane to the
mental. The cycle of rebirth driven by the Links of Dependent Arising describes the endless
perpetuation of ignorance and suffering, the continuous process by which craving and the delusion of
being a separate Self in a world of Other results in suffering.
The most important purpose of this formulation is to show how the cycle can be broken. By
working on our intentions in order to change our karma, we change the nature of the link called
Becoming. As a result, with each new “rebirth” we are less ignorant and the link of Craving is
weakened. Study and practice brings Tranquility and Insight, which generates powerful Equanimity
that further weakens Craving. Eventually the link of Craving is broken. When that happens, with the

cessation of Craving comes the cessation of Clinging, with the cessation of Clinging comes the
cessation of Becoming, with the cessation of Becoming comes the cessation of Rebirth, and with the
cessation of Rebirth, the Entire Mass of Suffering comes to an end.
Unfortunately, the commentarial tradition, which developed long after the Buddha’s passing,
presents these Twelve Links as a linear sequence spanning three different lifetimes in a 2-8-2 schema.
The first two links represent the past life. The middle eight represent this life. The final two represent
the next life. This interpretation shifted the theme away from a continuous process repeating
throughout a single lifetime, making it instead into a sequence of "incarnations." But no such
description of the Links is to be found anywhere in the Suttas. This is a later formulation generated
by staunch believers in reincarnation who had not fully grasped the import of the Buddha’s teaching.
If, when reading the Suttas, you understand that “rebirth” refers to this process of Dependent
Arising rather than to reincarnation, everything else the Buddha says will make much more sense.
In joy and service,
Culadasa
March 22, 2013
PS:
The practice that leads to understanding Dependent Arising as it pertains to the world at large and
phenomena in general:
Meditation on the arising and passing away of phenomena.
The practice that lead to understanding Dependent Arising as it pertains to the perceived Self:
Meditation on the links of Dependent Origination.

While "buddhism" suggests another belief system, “dharma practice” suggests a course of action. The four ennobling truths are not propositions to believe; they are challenges to act.

>Im buddhists but i dont accept rebirth
then you are not a buddhist

why do you think im not?
i shouldnt blindly accept rebirth as truth just because buddha mentions it.

If you don't accept the premise of rebirth, then why do you need enlightenment instead of suicide?

nobody needs enlightenment. monks spend their entire lives in a temple trying and failing to reach enlightenment. i fail to reach enlightenment as much as they do but i get the bonus of not restricting myself to a temple and a more free schedule. enlightenment isn't a necessity to living a content, peaceful life. or abiding by things like the eightfold path.
Committing suicide is a sign of attachment. nobody kills them self just to kill themselves. they do it because they are lonely, lost someone close to them, lost their life savings, feel like they are a burden to their friends/family etc. I don't have a reason to kill myself because of the nonexistence of rebirth or enlightenment. because i don't have an attachment to these ideas or concepts. i don't push myself to fulfill them so i wouldn't care if i reach it or not, or if they existed or not.
Just because rebirth/enlightenment isn't real, doesn't make life's existence pointless.

All I read in this post is
>I
>me
>my
>myself
Why would a true buddhist speak like this? Also, not believing nor accepting the idea of rebirth is basically rejecting the existence of karma. I know karma not only applies to past lifes, but the main component of karma is the consequences it has on rebirth and getting closer to the Buddha/enlightment.
>nobody needs enlightenment
Thats so triggering. One of the pillars (if not the only one one) of buddhism is to reach enlightment.
Please reconsider calling yourself a "buddhist" as you clearly dont know what this means.

>I'm a buddhist
>but i don't believe in enlightenment
>or rebirth

What's next? Karma? Nirvana? Eightfold path? 4 noble truths?

big k e k

>I
>me
>my
>myself
you asked for my interpretation no one elses.

>thats so triggering
attachment alert.

anything is up for the chopping block. somethings are harder to cut however.