A reader’s question (paraphrased)

A reader writes to express deep reservations about the coherence of the Buddhist anattā (no-self) doctrine when paired with the teachings on rebirth and karma.

First, the reader argues there is a fundamental contradiction in asserting continuity without an entity. If there is no self, "who" is reborn? They suggest that claiming rebirth occurs without a soul is akin to saying a "flame continues with no fire" or a "river flows with no water"—implying that continuity logically requires a carrier or a metaphysical model that Buddhism seems to lack.

Second, the reader questions how moral causation (Karma) can function without a moral agent. If there is no "doer" to intend actions and no "receiver" to experience the fruit, karma appears to be a hollow, mechanical process—like "weather being reborn"—devoid of ethical meaning.

Third, they contend that the Buddhist "stream of conditions" is simply a "hidden soul" or Eternalism in disguise. They argue that concepts like karmic memory, psychological patterns, and individual destiny require a locus or organizing principle. The reader contrasts this with the Mr A's teachings, which teach that the "individuality of consciousness" is real, divine, and evolves through lifetimes. They suggest the difference between the Buddhist "stream" and the "soul" is merely semantic, not structural.

Finally, the reader asserts that the doctrine of no-self contradicts lived experience. They point out that even in deep meditation or ego-transcendence, an "observer" or "awareness of awareness" remains. They conclude that true enlightenment (Christ Consciousness) is the fulfillment of this individuality rather than its dissolution into emptiness, and that meaning requires a continuing identity that learns, grows, and evolves.

Soh's reply:

The Redundancy of the "Doer": Why Continuity Requires No Identity

Your objection rests on a linguistic and cognitive illusion: the belief that for a function to occur (burning, moving, thinking), there must be a static entity behind it performing the function. You ask, "How can a flame continue with no fire?" or "How can karma exist without a receiver?"

The Buddhist answer is precise: The burning is the fire.

If you search for a "fire" distinct from the process of "burning," you will never find it. If you remove the heat and the combustion, where is the "fire"? It does not exist. There is no fire apart from burning, fire simply is only the burning. Similarly, if you search for a "Self" distinct from the stream of thoughts, intentions, and perceptions, you will never find it.

You are demanding a "Thinker" behind the thought, a "Mover" behind the movement, and a "Soul" behind the rebirth. But analysis and experiential contemplative realization reveals that these "Agents" are redundant conceptual imputations.

Here is the thorough breakdown of why your model of "Identity" is not required for continuity, moral causation, or meaning.

1. The Fallacy of Natures: "Water vs. Wetness"

You argued that a "stream without a self" is like a "river flowing with no water." You assume there is a "substance" (Soul/Self) that possesses "attributes" (consciousness/karma/memory). Madhyamaka analysis refutes this by showing that entities do not have intrinsic "natures" separate from their appearing.

If we analyze your claim that a "Self" is needed to hold the stream together, we find it is as redundant as claiming "Water" is needed to hold "Wetness" together. As explained by Ācārya Malcolm Smith, the "nature" of a thing is not a separate property held by a thing.

Refutation: Wetness and Water (Soh / Ācārya Malcolm Smith)

Source: https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=28648&start=20

Malcolm:

What do you mean by "nature?" Most people mean something that is intrinsic to a given thing. For example, common people assume the nature of fire is heat, the nature of water is wetness, and so on.

Bhavaviveka, etc., do not accept that things have natures. If they did, they could not be included even in Mahāyāna, let alone Madhyamaka.

...

The idea that things have natures is refuted by Nāgārjuna in the MMK, etc., Bhavaviveka, Candrakīrti, etc., in short by all Madhyamakas.

A "non-inherent nature" is a contradiction in terms.

The error of mundane, conventionally-valid perception is to believe that entities have natures, when in fact they do not, being phenomena that arise from conditions. It is quite easy to show a worldly person the contradiction in their thinking. Wetness and water are not two different things; therefore wetness is not the nature of water. Heat and fire are not two different things, therefore, heat is not the nature of fire, etc. For example, one can ask them, "Does wetness depend on water, or water on wetness?" If they claim wetness depends on water, ask them, where is there water that exists without wetness? If they claim the opposite, that water depends on wetness, ask them, where is there wetness that exists without water? If there is no wetness without water nor water without wetness, they can easily be shown that wetness is not a nature of water, but merely a name for the same entity under discussion. Thus, the assertion that wetness is the nature of water cannot survive analysis. The assertion of all other natures can be eliminated in the same way.

...

Then not only are you ignorant of the English language, but you are ignorant of Candrakīrti where, in the Prasannapāda, he states that the only nature is the natureless nature, emptiness.

Then, if it is asked what is this dharmatā of phenomena, it is the essence of phenomena. If it is ask what is an essence, it is a nature [or an inherent existence, rang bzhin]. If it is asked what is an inherent existence [or nature], it is emptiness. If it is asked what is emptiness, it is naturelessness [or absence of inherent existence]. If it is asked what is the absence of inherent existence [or naturelessness], it is suchness [tathāta]. If it is asked what is suchness, it is the essence of suchness that is unchanging and permanent, that is, because it is not fabricated it does not arise in all aspects and because it is not dependent, it is called the nature [or inherent existence] of fire, etc.

The Application: Just as there is no "Water-Entity" holding "Wetness," there is no "Soul-Entity" holding "Karma." There is only the flow of the stream. Adding a "Soul" is adding a redundancy.

2. The Fallacy of Agency: "The Moving Mover"

You asked: "If there’s no self, then who acted? Who receives the result? Who learns? Who feeds on the karma?"

This specific line of questioning—looking for a "Who" behind the process—was explicitly addressed and rejected by the Buddha. The question itself is incorrect because it presupposes an agent where there is only a process of conditionality.

In the Phagguna Sutta, the Buddha corrects a monk who asks, "Who feeds?" and "Who feels?"

Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna

Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera

"There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four? Edible food, coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, volitional thought; fourthly, consciousness."

After these words, the venerable Moliya-Phagguna addressed the Exalted One as follows:

"Who, O Lord, consumes the nutriment consciousness?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he consumes.' If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The nutriment consciousness is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence; when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'"

"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"

"Who, O Lord, feels?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

"Who, O Lord, craves?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

"Through the complete fading away and cessation of even these six bases of sense-impression, sense-impression ceases; through the cessation of sense-impression, feeling ceases; through the cessation of feeling, craving ceases; through the cessation of craving, clinging ceases; through the cessation of clinging, the process of becoming ceases; through the cessation of the process of becoming, birth ceases; through the cessation of birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering."

The Application: "Who acts?" The action acts. The intention (cetana) arises, acts, and dissolves. "Who receives?" The fruit of the action arises. There is no static "Receiver" sitting in a waiting room; the "Receiver" is just the next moment of the stream, conditioned by the previous moment.

This is further supported by Madhyamaka analysis regarding the "Moving Mover." If you are not walking, you are not a walker. If you are walking, the "walker" is not separate from the act of walking. There is no "Doer" standing apart from the "Deed."

Refutation: Agent and Action (Soh / Ācārya Malcolm Smith)

Source: Facebook Group "Ask the Ācārya" and DharmaWheel archives

Malcolm Smith: "Nāgārjuna shows two things in chapter two, one, he says that if there is a moving mover, this separates the agent from the action, and either the mover is not necessary or the moving is not necessary. It is redundant.

...

In common language we oftren saying things like "There is a burning fire." But since that is what a fire is (burning) there is no separate agent which is doing the burning, fire is burning.

...

The point is aimed at the notion that there has to be a falling faller, a seeing seer, etc. it is fine to say there is a falling cat, but stupid to say the cat is a falling faller. The argument is aimed at that sort of naive premise.

...

But if the sight of forms cannot be found in the eyes, and not in the object, nor the eye consciousness, then none of them are sufficient to explain the act of seeing. Because of this, statements like the eyes are seers is just a convention, but isn’t really factual.

...

There is no typing typer, no learning learner, no digesting digester, thinking tinker, or driving driver.

...

No, a falling faller does not make any sense. As Nāgārjuna would put it, apart from snow that has fallen or has not fallen, presently there is no falling.

...

It is best if you consult the investigation into movement in the MMK, chapter two. This is where it is shown that agents are mere conventions. If one claims there is agent with agency, one is claiming the agent and the agency are separate. But if you claim that agency is merely a characteristic of an agent, when agent does not exercise agency, it isn't an agent since an agent that is not exercising agency is in fact a non-agent. Therefore, rather than agency being dependent on an agent, an agent is predicated upon exercising agency. For example, take movement. If there is an agent there has to be a moving mover. But there is no mover when there is no moving. Apart from moving, how could there be a mover? But when there is moving, there is no agent of moving that can be ascertained to be separate from the moving... If a moving mover cannot be established, an agent cannot be established."

3. The Mechanics of Karma: A Process, Not a Person

You claim that without a soul, karma is "incoherent." This is because you view karma as a judicial system requiring a defendant. In Buddhism, Karma is a natural causal law (Pratītyasamutpāda), like a seed producing a fruit. Does a mango seed need a "soul" to remember to become a mango tree? No. The conditions necessitate the result.

Nāgārjuna explicitly states that this wheel of existence turns without a sentient being.

Verses on the Heart of Dependent Origination (Arya Nāgārjuna)

...

From the three the two originate,

And from the two the seven come,

From seven the three come once again—

Thus the wheel of existence turns and turns.

All beings consist of causes and effects,

In which there is no ‘sentient being’ at all.

From phenomena which are exclusively empty,

There arise only empty phenomena.

All things are devoid of any ‘I’ or ‘mine’.

...

Like a recitation, a candle, a mirror, a seal,

A magnifying glass, a seed, sourness, or a sound,

So also with the continuation of the aggregates—

The wise should know they are not transferred.

...

4. Rebutting "The Flame with No Fire" (Continuity without Transmigration)

You wrote: “That’s just like saying a flame continues with no fire... I sense a contradiction.”

The flame analogy is not a contradiction; it is the precise explanation of how rebirth works without a soul. The flame of the second candle is not the "same" flame as the first, nor is it "totally different" (as it arose dependent on the first). It is a continuum of heat and combustion, not the movement of a "fire substance."

Rizenfenix wrote:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/06/emptiness-and-karma-reincarnation.html

...

Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.

...

One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…

5. The Illusion of the "Observer"

You argue that "No-self contradicts lived experience... Even in deep meditation, there’s an observer."

What you are describing ("an observer," "awareness of awareness") is a well-known phase of spiritual realization in contemplative development, but it is not the end. In the Seven Stages of Enlightenment discussed on Awakening to Reality (specifically Thusness’s stages), the stage of the “I AM Realization”/"The Eternal Witness" (Stage 1~2 of https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html) is where one dis-identifies from thoughts, realizes and rests as an all-pervading Presence that is seen as the ultimate “Witness”.

However, Buddhism views this "Witness/Observer" as a subtle reification of a self. It is still dualistic (Subject vs. Object). The realization of Anatta (no-self) is the collapse of the observer/observed duality.

In Anatman, everything is just vibrant spontaneous presence-awareness but no subject or object. There is no "one" looking at the stream; there is just the vibrant presence of the stream itself.

6. Meaning without Identity: The Experiential Reality

Finally, you argue that meaning requires the "evolution of the soul" or "divine individuality." You claim we need a self to "learn" and "become more ourselves."

Buddhism disagrees. Meaning is found in the cessation of suffering. The "experiencer" you cling to is not the vessel of meaning; it is the very knot of suffering. We do not "erase" a real self; we discover that the self was a hallucination all along.

You might fear that losing this "Self" leads to a dry, mechanical, or nihilistic existence. Analysis and experiential contemplative realization reveals the exact opposite. When the delusion of the "Observer" or "Agent" collapses, what remains is not nothingness, but a vivid, boundless, and miraculous aliveness.

Here is what the actual experience of this "no-self" realization is like, as described in the Awakening to Reality guide:

Why awakening is so worth it (Soh)

From time to time, people ask me why should they seek awakening. I say, awakening will be the best thing that happen in your life, I guarantee it. It is worth whatever effort you put into it. You won't regret it. Or as Daniel M. Ingram said, "Would I trade this for anything? Maybe world peace, but I would have to think about it. Until then, this totally rocks, and missing out on it would be barking crazy from my point of view."

What is it like? I can only give a little preview, an excerpt of what I wrote taken from the AtR guide:

"Personally, I can say from direct experience that direct realization is completely direct, immediate, and non-intellectual, it is the most direct and intimate taste of reality beyond the realm of imagination. It far exceeds one’s expectations and is far superior to anything the mind can ever imagine or dream of. It is utter freedom. Can you imagine living every moment in purity and perfection without effort, where grasping at identity does not take hold, where there is not a trace or sense of 'I' as a seer, feeler, thinker, doer, be-er/being, an agent, a 'self' entity residing inside the body somewhere relating to an outside world, and what shines forth and stands out in the absence of a 'self' is a very marvellous, wondrous, vivid, alive world that is full of intense vividness, joy, clarity, vitality, and an intelligence that is operating as every spontaneous action (there is no sense of being a doer), where any bodily actions, speech and thoughts are just as spontaneous as heart beating, fingernails growing, birds singing, air moving gently, breath flowing, sun shining - there is no distinction between ‘you are doing action’/’you are living’ and ‘action is being done to you’/’you are being lived’ (as there is simply no ‘you’ and ‘it’ - only total and boundless spontaneous presencing).

This is a world where nothing can ever sully and touch that purity and perfection, where the whole of universe/whole of mind is always experienced vividly as that very purity and perfection devoid of any kind of sense of self or perceiver whatsoever that is experiencing the world at a distance from a vantagepoint -- life without ‘self’ is a living paradise free of afflictive/painful emotions ... where every color, sound, smell, taste, touch and detail of the world stands out as the very boundless field of pristine awareness, sparkling brilliance/radiance, colorful, high-saturation, HD, luminous, heightened intensity and shining wonderment and magicality... where the world is a fairy-tale like wonderland, revealed anew every moment in its fullest depths as if you are a new-born baby experiencing life for the first time...

You know all the Mahayana Sutras (e.g. Vimalakirti Sutra), old Zen talks about seeing this very earth as pure land and all the Vajrayana talks about the point of tantra as the pure vision of seeing this very world, body, speech and mind in its primordial unfabricated purity as the Buddha field, palace, mandala, mantra and deity? Now you truly get it, you realise everything is really just like that when experienced in its primordial purity and perfection, and that the old sages have not been exaggerating at all. It is as much a literal and precise description of the state of consciousness as it is a metaphor. As I told John Tan before, Amitabha Sutra’s description of pure land resembles my living experience here and now. “To me it just means anatta. When what’s seen, tasted, touched, smelled are in clean purity, everywhere is pure land.” - John Tan, 2019. "If one is free from background self, all manifestations appear in clean purity in taste. Impurities from what I know come from mental constructions." – John Tan, 2020

This is a freedom that is free from any artificially constructed boundaries and limitations. And yet, this boundlessness does not in any way lead to the dissociation from one’s body, instead one feels more alive than ever as one’s very body, one grows ever more somatic, at home and intimate as one’s body. This is not a body normally conceived of, as the boundaries of an artificially solidified body that stands separated from the universe, dissolve into energetic streams of aliveness dancing and pulsating throughout the body in high energy and pleasure, as well as sensations of foot steps, movement, palm touching an object, where the body is no longer conflated with a constructed boundary of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, ‘self’ or ‘other’, where no trace of an ‘inside’ and an ‘outside’ can be found in one’s state of consciousness - there’s only one indivisible, boundless and measureless world/mind - only this infinitude of a dynamic and seamlessly interconnected dance that we call ‘the universe’. ... All these words and descriptions I just wrote came very easily and spontaneously in a very short time as I am simply describing my current state of experience that is experienced every moment. I am not being poetic here but simply being as direct and clear as possible about what is immediately experienced. And this is only a figment that I am describing. If I were to tell you more of what this is like, you would not believe it. But once you enter this gateless realm you shall see that words always pale in comparison."