Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Self vs. Consciousness--What's the Difference, If Any? (Warning: another Rebirth thread)
So you think he would have been lying to the "ordinary people"? Talking about rebirth while he doesn't think it exists?
Sabre
It is all a matter of language & interpretation. Words such as "death" and "the body" have different meanings in Dhamma.
This matter has already been settled in Buddhism. There is no need for you to try to reinvent the wheel so please read the quote below very carefully.
To end, the meaning depends on the interpretation of the listener & reader and not the speaker. You have the choice to interpret what is said in any way you wish.
The Awakened One, best of speakers, Spoke two kinds of truths: The conventional and the ultimate. A third truth does not obtain.
Therein: The speech wherewith the world converses is true On account of its being agreed upon by the world. The speech which describes what is ultimate is also true, Through characterizing dhammas as they really are.
Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to conventions.
I already explained the suttas teach reincarnation on the level of "self", "existence" and "eternalism".
Your questioning is conflicting your own arguements. You earlier proposed if "emptiness" is reborn then why would anyone try to do good so their merits accrue to a future life that is not their own?
The buddha didn't teach the same to everyone...he teached in accordance to the needs of who he was teaching to...rebirth is a "higher" truth than thinking we just live this life then are gone, and not self is a "higher" truth than rebirth. He didn't "lie," it's just that he said what he needed to say in certain circumstances.
i don't think the buddha wrote the sutras. people wrote what the buddha said. when the buddha spoke he spoke to certain people and he spoke certain things to those specific people. we lack understanding of the cultural/socioeconomic factors and every other variable. that is why there is a teacher, who teaches according to where the student is on the path. it may not be wise to learn all about "emptiness" on the day one of your first encounter with buddhism.
karma only exists if you're stuck in your conditioned patterns. karma is a product of mind. with enlightenment the flame will vanish but it can reappear again. from the still point if one attains such fullness/emptiness. they do no create any karma, even though they may seem like they are creating karma.
for an awaken being. they can choose to either create karma or not create karma because it doesn't matter. all actions are unconditioned. choosing to do good acts, creates karma. all karma is is cause and effect. you do good things, you get good results. you do bad things, you get bad results. that's all it is.
but to an awakened being. there is no good or bad. but there is. good/bad is seen as the same. samsara is the same as nirvana. so from this vantage point there is karma, but there isn't. truth always moves paradoxically.
that is why the bodhisattva vows to save innumerable sentient beings, eliminates endless afflictions/delusions, learns innumerable doctrines, and accomplishes the unsurpassed buddha way. there is no end because all of it is a construct of mind. as long as people think and grasp, there are infinite people to awaken. but they are already the buddha, they just forgot. but even a buddha can do actions. good actions (again neither good or bad because it is the same for the buddha).
a bodhisattva decides to save all beings because he/she realizes that everyone is already saved. they just need a little push. it is a desire has no karma. because the bodhisattva looks for no outcome, nor has no goal. a bodhisattva points and help people along on the path. there is no reason to for they are already saved.
just do it to do it do it to do it. the action justifies the action.
Rebirth is lokiya dhamma, that is, a mundane teaching for ordinary people (puthujjana).
Not-self is lokkutara dhamma, that is, a supramundane teaching for those seeking enlightenment (sekha).
I've seen repeated references on this forum to "supramundane teachings". Where are these teachings? Is this a separate body of text from the Pali and other sutras? To what is the term "supramundane teachings" referring?
So you think he would have been lying to the "ordinary people"? Talking about rebirth while he doesn't think it exists?
Sabre ...
Hi DD,
I'd like to share my view on this.
Of course reading suttas and listening to (partly) enlightened teachers is all a matter of interpretation. If they could show the dhamma in any other way more directly, they would. Everybody interprets words based on their own knowledge and their (possibly wrong) perceptions. Only our own meditation can possibly break through these wrong perceptions.
So because interpretation is based upon previous perceptions, it this is not a choice. You either see the truth or you don't. You can't make a decision on whatever you pick. "Well, from now on I decide this is the truth and tomorrow there is another truth, whatever suits me."
Of course, that doesn't work. There can only be one truth, not two. That's by definition when you talk about truth. There is only one nature, not two natures. Nature doesn't do anything different depending on what you want it to do or what you think it does. Nature just does nature business
Therefore I think by the "conventional truth" (conventional means agreed upon by many, but that doesn't mean it is the ultimate truth) is meant the ordinary worldy perceptions, which of course are true in a way, but don't say anything about the dhamma. The ultimate truth (=dhamma) contains the conventional truth within it. It has to. As I said before, they can't be two separate things.
To get back to the subject: In the time of the Buddha this "conventional truth" was the idea of endless rebirth (Brahmanism). But the ultimate truth Buddha gained upon enlightenment was that he discovered rebirth is not endless, because there is no constant self being reborn anyway.
So you think he would have been lying to the "ordinary people"? Talking about rebirth while he doesn't think it exists?
Sabre ...
Only our own meditation can possibly break through these wrong perceptions.
Ok, maybe not only meditation. I remember there are some suttas stating people got (partly) enlightened when hearing the word of the Buddha aimed directly at them, but I think that is very rare these days, because the Buddha is long gone.
Thanks, SD. Except Theravadans speak of supramundane teachings, too. Maybe someone will come along and explain. Did you view the video of HHDL? It didn't address rebirth and self or consciousness at all. I wonder if the wrong video got posted by mistake?
The word supramundane on itself can mean a lot, but I think what is commonly meant with supramundane teachings vs mundane teachings is the "2 truths" I talked about in a post above. The mundane, ordinary teachings are about 'daily life', the supramundane about the real dhamma, as only seen by insight. Meaning mundane view is not necessarily wrong view, but it simply is not looking deep enough. Supermundane view is the view when the right view factor of the 8-fold path is complete.
And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html
I also found this on a site, which explains it in more detail. A very good read. I recommend it.
Directly perceiving the workings of karma and rebirth were very much involved in the Buddha’s awakening. They were also a major element in the Buddha’s explanation of right view, the first part of the noble eightfold path. However, there are two different types of right view, and only the first deals with karma and rebirth. There is mundane right view dealing with the unfolding of conditions pertaining to karma and rebirth; but beyond that is the supramundane right view that comes from awakening to the unconditioned. http://fraughtwithperil.com/ryuei/2010/06/16/mundane-and-supramundane-right-view/
Very helpful. "Only the supramundane right view that deals with the unconditioned beyond the unfolding of causes and conditions can lead to disentanglement from karma and rebirth." There's a mouthful! But according to this, supramundane teachings include karma and rebirth. If there were no rebirth, there would be nothing to become disentangled from. (Sabre, can you find the part where it says what it is that gets reborn?)
'Self' is a creation of our consciousness; 'consciousness' is an emergent property of our physical bodies; and our physical bodies are an expression of our genetic and environmental heritage, ie, causes and conditions.
And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent [lokuttara], connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."
"he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell."
"He reappears..."?
It's just a way of speaking. Note that it says: "And on the dissolution of the body, after death.." which clearly refers to physical death, not some metaphorical "death" of the I as claimed by the devotees of the moment to moment rebirth interpretation.
"he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell."
"He reappears..."?
It's just a way of speaking. Note that it says: "And on the dissolution of the body, after death.." which clearly refers to physical death, not some metaphorical "death" of the I as claimed by the devotees of the moment to moment rebirth interpretation.
P
The moment to moment rebirth is true in a way, of course. You always change, are in constant flux. But this is really very obvious and I think it is quite clear the Buddha didn't leave his family and spent years in solitude as an excellent meditator just to come to the conclusion: "Ow what the hell, this is the only life, there is nothing you can do but have a laugh and hug people. So now I'll construct some kind of path that makes people do that."
I'm being a bit extreme here and I'm repetitious, I know, but I think it is very important this point gets across. Because some otherwise very potential people might miss the point of Buddhism and stop investigating or even meditating and that would be a shame, really. Buddha thought the way out of samsara, the endless round of birth and death. And to be able to do that, you have to be a hell of a meditator, not someone who knows his suttas.
The emphasis is on karma (although a "self" is reborn)
DD! You're a rebirther! This is huge news! :eek: Have you switched teams? Welcome to the rebirth camp! And FYI, we've been saying all along it's karma that gets reborn, via the vehicle of "consciousness" (or "self" if you see it that way; we can be flexible )
Do these two quotes seem contradictory, or is it just me....? :-/
Yes, its just you, not focused on things concerned with the cessation of suffering :-/
The topic is on self, consciousness and rebirth. Just trying to clarify some points.
We've always been rebirthers. Just not post-mortem rebirthers.
OK, I can appreciate that, 5bells, (I respect everyone's right to not accept post-mortem rebirth),but it sounds like DD's saying something different here. He's saying the rebirth of karma (accompanied by rebirth of a "self", he says) was taught by the Buddha as a moral teaching aimed at the cessation of suffering. (If I understood correctly.) Your view?
I find DD's interpretation plausible, but who knows? This question has no bearing on my practice. If I ever start hallucinating a past life and feel convinced that that's actually what's happening, perhaps I will reconsider the matter. But I hope that above all I would attend to the sensations which I have interpreted as that hallucination and that conviction, and inquire into their impermanence, suffering and nonself. That is the path to release, not this speculative stuff.
I find DD's interpretation plausible, but who knows? This question has no bearing on my practice. If I ever start hallucinating a past life and feel convinced that that's actually what's happening, perhaps I will reconsider the matter. But I hope that above all I would attend to the sensations which I have interpreted as that hallucination and that conviction, and inquire into their impermanence, suffering and nonself. That is the path to release, not this speculative stuff.
Absolutely. It has no bearing on my practice either.
Note that it says: "And on the dissolution of the body, after death.." which clearly refers to physical death, not some metaphorical "death" of the I as claimed by the devotees of the moment to moment rebirth interpretation.
Absolutely not Porpoise.
The suttas say the view of a puthujana can never be the same as one who sees
Note that it says: "And on the dissolution of the body, after death.." which clearly refers to physical death, not some metaphorical "death" of the I as claimed by the devotees of the moment to moment rebirth interpretation.
To comprehend Dependent Origination is to see a new & different body (nama-rupa) occurs with each arising of ignorance; with each becoming. This is not rocket science. It simply requires meditation.
For example, when the mind has lust, the change in the physical body is obvious. When the mind has anger, the change in the physical body is obvious. When the mind is depressed, the change in the physcial body is obvious. When there is loss of something loved or something becomed, the change in the body is obvious.
All the best
"For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five aggregates head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.
"For him — uninfatuated, unattached, unconfused, remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five aggregates head toward future diminution. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — is abandoned by him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances are abandoned. His bodily torments & mental torments are abandoned. His bodily distresses & mental distresses are abandoned. He is sensitive both to ease of body & ease of awareness.
I find DD's interpretation plausible, but who knows? This question has no bearing on my practice. If I ever start hallucinating a past life and feel convinced that that's actually what's happening, perhaps I will reconsider the matter. But I hope that above all I would attend to the sensations which I have interpreted as that hallucination and that conviction, and inquire into their impermanence, suffering and nonself. That is the path to release, not this speculative stuff.
OK, I can appreciate that, 5bells, (I respect everyone's right to not accept post-mortem rebirth),but it sounds like DD's saying something different here. He's saying the rebirth of karma (accompanied by rebirth of a "self", he says) was taught by the Buddha as a moral teaching aimed at the cessation of suffering.
The Buddha may well have taught rebirth as a morality teaching. But it appears that he DID teach rebirth, so let's not fudge the issue.
To comprehend Dependent Origination is to see a new & different body (nama-rupa) occurs with each arising of ignorance; with each becoming. This is not rocket science.
But this moment to moment approach isn't how the Buddha taught DO in the suttas. Again, this is fudging the issue.
It is all a matter of language & interpretation. Words such as "death" and "the body" have different meanings in Dhamma.
This is not correct. It would be correct to say that language is always context dependent, ie words can have different meanings in different contexts. But in the suttas words like birth, death etc often take their literal meaning. Trying to deny this can reflect an aversion to what the suttas actually say.
Buddha thought the way out of samsara, the endless round of birth and death. And to be able to do that, you have to be a hell of a meditator, not someone who knows his suttas.
Absolutely. Though the two are not mutuallly exclusive. ;-)
In Buddhism it's said there is no self. Yet teachings on rebirth say "consciousness" is what transmigrates to the new life form. Is this a semantic game--is "consciousness" another word for "self"? Or are they different, and if so, how?
[" Consciousness simply is. It can't exist without the matter and matter can't exist without the consciousness. Even if matter existed without consciousness nobody could prove it/experience it. In order for a material collection to know its own existence (to experience some of its properties) there has to be consciousness. This means no practical experiments can be done which will show otherwise (or even remotely point to anything else). All experiments (and everything experienced) are experienced consciously. On the other hand there's no consciousness without the object of experience. The objects of experience can be called matter in general. Whether we experience an objects shape/form/color, sounds it makes, touching sensation it produces (and so on) these all can be called matter. And even if consciousness could be an independently existing entity it would not know of its own independence since knowing or experiencing anything would be to experience the object of consciousness."]
"Now tell me, friend Sariputta: is consciousness self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made, or — without self-making or other-making, does it arise spontaneously?"
"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness."
“Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-and form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.
“If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.
In Buddhism it's said there is no self. Yet teachings on rebirth say "consciousness" is what transmigrates to the new life form. Is this a semantic game--is "consciousness" another word for "self"? Or are they different, and if so, how?
Consciousness is you in action as the self in the form of warrior.
“Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-and form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.
"Consciousness" is awareness or awareness of awareness. The perceiver and that which is perceived.
"Self" is the imagination of yourself as a separate and permanent you. A mental fabrication or illusion that we attach to and then suffer because of it. The core of our suffering is rooted in ignorance arising from attachment to the illusion of self. We don't see that we are conditioned by our past to believe we are this or that, a separate and permanent entity. But don't spin off into nihilism with this realization either. That is just dualistic thinking.
Anatta is liberating as it shows us that we don't have to cling to beliefs and concepts of our imaginary self. We slowly learn through meditation and mindful practice to let go of this ego identity nonsense and resulting attachment and aversion. That there is no separation between the perciever and that which is perceived, no separation between suffering of all beings, and ultimately no separation between this life and the previous/next life.
My advise - stop worrying about who/what will "transmigrate to the next life form." Wake up now and let go of this attachment to self to see beyond fear and beliefs.
Consciousness is reborn moment by moment, lifetime by lifetime into the present moment when conditions are ready.
@SeaOfTranquility, Ah, and yet there is no perceiver. There is awareness/consciousness of a mind-object. That awareness is not you any more than the mind-object.
Cause and effect is the engine that drives everything forth, but "everything" is mind and form. And so there is experience and that which is experienced, undergoing change dependent upon conditions. It is not you, it does not belong to you, it is not permanent/unchanging. The nature of form is change, and so the nature of mind is change. You are the unborn, the deathless, the Tao.
So you think he would have been lying to the "ordinary people"? Talking about rebirth while he doesn't think it exists?
This is a good point. I think it's much more likely that the Buddha was simply describing what he had seen. According to the suttas just prior to enlightenment the Buddha saw his own previous lives, and saw living beings being reborn according to their actions. Undoubtedly the Buddha taught in different ways to different people, but the idea that he just taught rebirth to ordinary people who were too thick to get the more advanced teachings is rather dubious IMO.
Comments
It is all a matter of language & interpretation. Words such as "death" and "the body" have different meanings in Dhamma.
This matter has already been settled in Buddhism. There is no need for you to try to reinvent the wheel so please read the quote below very carefully.
To end, the meaning depends on the interpretation of the listener & reader and not the speaker. You have the choice to interpret what is said in any way you wish.
Your questioning is conflicting your own arguements. You earlier proposed if "emptiness" is reborn then why would anyone try to do good so their merits accrue to a future life that is not their own?
karma only exists if you're stuck in your conditioned patterns. karma is a product of mind. with enlightenment the flame will vanish but it can reappear again. from the still point if one attains such fullness/emptiness. they do no create any karma, even though they may seem like they are creating karma.
for an awaken being. they can choose to either create karma or not create karma because it doesn't matter. all actions are unconditioned. choosing to do good acts, creates karma. all karma is is cause and effect. you do good things, you get good results. you do bad things, you get bad results. that's all it is.
but to an awakened being. there is no good or bad. but there is. good/bad is seen as the same. samsara is the same as nirvana. so from this vantage point there is karma, but there isn't. truth always moves paradoxically.
that is why the bodhisattva vows to save innumerable sentient beings, eliminates endless afflictions/delusions, learns innumerable doctrines, and accomplishes the unsurpassed buddha way. there is no end because all of it is a construct of mind. as long as people think and grasp, there are infinite people to awaken. but they are already the buddha, they just forgot. but even a buddha can do actions. good actions (again neither good or bad because it is the same for the buddha).
a bodhisattva decides to save all beings because he/she realizes that everyone is already saved. they just need a little push. it is a desire has no karma. because the bodhisattva looks for no outcome, nor has no goal. a bodhisattva points and help people along on the path. there is no reason to for they are already saved.
just do it to do it do it to do it. the action justifies the action.
I'd like to share my view on this.
Of course reading suttas and listening to (partly) enlightened teachers is all a matter of interpretation. If they could show the dhamma in any other way more directly, they would. Everybody interprets words based on their own knowledge and their (possibly wrong) perceptions. Only our own meditation can possibly break through these wrong perceptions.
So because interpretation is based upon previous perceptions, it this is not a choice. You either see the truth or you don't. You can't make a decision on whatever you pick. "Well, from now on I decide this is the truth and tomorrow there is another truth, whatever suits me."
Of course, that doesn't work. There can only be one truth, not two. That's by definition when you talk about truth. There is only one nature, not two natures. Nature doesn't do anything different depending on what you want it to do or what you think it does. Nature just does nature business
Therefore I think by the "conventional truth" (conventional means agreed upon by many, but that doesn't mean it is the ultimate truth) is meant the ordinary worldy perceptions, which of course are true in a way, but don't say anything about the dhamma. The ultimate truth (=dhamma) contains the conventional truth within it. It has to. As I said before, they can't be two separate things.
To get back to the subject: In the time of the Buddha this "conventional truth" was the idea of endless rebirth (Brahmanism). But the ultimate truth Buddha gained upon enlightenment was that he discovered rebirth is not endless, because there is no constant self being reborn anyway.
Sabre
Did you view the video of HHDL? It didn't address rebirth and self or consciousness at all. I wonder if the wrong video got posted by mistake?
Very helpful. "Only the supramundane right view that deals with the unconditioned beyond the unfolding of causes and conditions can lead to disentanglement from karma and rebirth." There's a mouthful! But according to this, supramundane teachings include karma and rebirth. If there were no rebirth, there would be nothing to become disentangled from. (Sabre, can you find the part where it says what it is that gets reborn?)
'Self' is a creation of our consciousness; 'consciousness' is an emergent property of our physical bodies; and our physical bodies are an expression of our genetic and environmental heritage, ie, causes and conditions.
transcendent = lokuttara = supramundane
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html
transcendent = lokuttara = supramundane = connected with emptiness
As I said, the Buddha was not concerned with meta-physics
The Buddha was concerned with alleviating suffering via encouraging non-harming
The Buddha would not teach a consciousness or a "self" or anything else was reborn if it had no karmic ramifications
Yes, its just you, not focused on things concerned with the cessation of suffering :-/
P
I'm being a bit extreme here and I'm repetitious, I know, but I think it is very important this point gets across. Because some otherwise very potential people might miss the point of Buddhism and stop investigating or even meditating and that would be a shame, really. Buddha thought the way out of samsara, the endless round of birth and death. And to be able to do that, you have to be a hell of a meditator, not someone who knows his suttas.
With metta to all,
Sabre
The suttas say the view of a puthujana can never be the same as one who sees
All the best
They have no relationship whatsover to freedom from suffering.
The Buddha taught anatta (not-self) not because it is true. He taught anatta because it ends suffering.
If anatta was true but caused suffering, the Buddha would not have taught it.
Similarly, the Buddha taught rebirth because it can, to a certain degree, help end some suffering.
My impression is your threads have become increasingly disconnected from the goals of Buddhism.
"If I was enlightened"...(your mind is not enlightened).."would I chose to be reborn"....(double speculation)
Such threads alienate one from the compassion of the Buddha. If the Buddha could have come back, do you think he would of?
For example, when the mind has lust, the change in the physical body is obvious. When the mind has anger, the change in the physical body is obvious. When the mind is depressed, the change in the physcial body is obvious. When there is loss of something loved or something becomed, the change in the body is obvious.
All the best
P
P
P
This is not correct. It would be correct to say that language is always context dependent, ie words can have different meanings in different contexts. But in the suttas words like birth, death etc often take their literal meaning. Trying to deny this can reflect an aversion to what the suttas actually say.
P
P
[" Consciousness simply is. It can't exist without the matter and matter can't exist without the consciousness. Even if matter existed without consciousness nobody could prove it/experience it. In order for a material collection to know its own existence (to experience some of its properties) there has to be consciousness. This means no practical experiments can be done which will show otherwise (or even remotely point to anything else). All experiments (and everything experienced) are experienced consciously. On the other hand there's no consciousness without the object of experience. The objects of experience can be called matter in general. Whether we experience an objects shape/form/color, sounds it makes, touching sensation it produces (and so on) these all can be called matter. And even if consciousness could be an independently existing entity it would not know of its own independence since knowing or experiencing anything would be to experience the object of consciousness."]
____________________________________________________________________
"Now tell me, friend Sariputta: is consciousness self-made or other-made or both self-made & other-made, or — without self-making or other-making, does it arise spontaneously?"
"It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness."
“Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-and form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.
“If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.
SN 12.67 Nakalapiyo Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html
P
"Self" is the imagination of yourself as a separate and permanent you. A mental fabrication or illusion that we attach to and then suffer because of it. The core of our suffering is rooted in ignorance arising from attachment to the illusion of self. We don't see that we are conditioned by our past to believe we are this or that, a separate and permanent entity.
But don't spin off into nihilism with this realization either. That is just dualistic thinking.
Anatta is liberating as it shows us that we don't have to cling to beliefs and concepts of our imaginary self. We slowly learn through meditation and mindful practice to let go of this ego identity nonsense and resulting attachment and aversion. That there is no separation between the perciever and that which is perceived, no separation between suffering of all beings, and ultimately no separation between this life and the previous/next life.
My advise - stop worrying about who/what will "transmigrate to the next life form." Wake up now and let go of this attachment to self to see beyond fear and beliefs.
Consciousness is reborn moment by moment, lifetime by lifetime into the present moment when conditions are ready.
This is a good point. I think it's much more likely that the Buddha was simply describing what he had seen. According to the suttas just prior to enlightenment the Buddha saw his own previous lives, and saw living beings being reborn according to their actions.
Undoubtedly the Buddha taught in different ways to different people, but the idea that he just taught rebirth to ordinary people who were too thick to get the more advanced teachings is rather dubious IMO.
P