...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by reflection »

lyndon taylor wrote:I think if the buddha actually believed there was absolutely no self of any kind, he would have said so quite plainly, If there really was absolutely no self, why didn't he just say straight up, there is absolutely no self of any kind, instead he went to all this trouble to show us what all the fake counterfit selves were, by saying what you see is not your self, what you hear is not your self, what you feel, smell, taste is not your self, your senses are not your self, your physical body is not your self, your random everyday thoughts are not your self, but he never said there is nothing that is your self, and obviously if he really believed there was no kind of self he would have said so, instead of going to so much trouble to point out what we might think are fake or counterfit selves, there are plenty of scriptural references to what the self is, it is permanent, it is the "buddha nature", it is the good inside us, but they are mostly mahayana in transmission, but even in Therevada, there is no complete denial of any kind of self being real.
You can just as easily (even more easily I'd say) turn this argument around. Nowhere in the suttas does the Buddha say there is a self. So in your argumenation; if there was, he would have said so. But he didn't; not in the oldest texts at least. The newer texts usually are not considered the word of the Buddha in Theravada Buddhism.

But, the Buddha did on various occasions say there is no self at all. "Sabbe dhamma anatta", 'everything is not a self' being the most famous example of this. But it all lies in recognizing that there is nothing outside of the five aggregates, so nothing can be self. In fact the suttas do explicitly say that whoever constructs a self (has a self view), does it in terms of one or more of the aggregates.

The aggregates are used because self view in general is not a definition, it is ingrained in wrong view with respect to the aggregates. Just saying 'everything is not a self' is not really leading people to investigate what they base their self view on. Therefore the aggregates as a teaching tool, but one must not mistake this to mean there is something outside of the aggregates.

This discussion has been done here many times before, but it keeps surprising me how people keep trying to defend a self view while it should be quite obvious that this is not what the Buddha was on about.


But again, we have to use this to look at our own experience. What do you take to be parmanent? What do you take to be "you" or "yours"? What do you think you are in control off? Seeing that all these things are just a process without core is going towards understanding no self. An intellectual challenge or reading suttas just won't.
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by lyndon taylor »

Reflection we'e had these arguements 1000 times, the buddha clearly stated there are two extremes that are wrong; there is no self, and there is a permanent abiding self, he said neither is true, the truth is somewhere in the middle. By the way you state the Buddha says; "Sabbe dhamma anatta", 'everything is not a self' how in the world do you translate the word Dhamma into your english "everything is not a self' are you translating Dhamma as everything, in which case that's a ridiculous translation, or what?? explanation????


The big problem with the more mahayana idea of a good self, like the buddha nature, that goes beyond death, is if we are so controlled by this good self, why do we keep doing bad things, perhaps its the non self, the fake counterfeit self that's doing the bad things and once we completely eliminate the non self from our mind, we become enlightened and only do good things, in fact there are some teachings that say a truly enlightened person cannot do bad things like break the precepts.

Does the Buddha ever state that the non self does or does not exist for the unenlightened person that hasn't gotten rid of it, can we be controlled by our non self, or does our non self completely not exist so it has absolutely no hold on us(unlikely)
Last edited by lyndon taylor on Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by reflection »

lyndon taylor wrote:Reflection we'e had these arguements 1000 times, the buddha clearly stated there are two extremes that are wrong; there is no self
Please provide this quote for me as I've never seen it.

Then I will provide you with this quote:
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, whatever contemplatives or brahmans who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Last edited by reflection on Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by lyndon taylor »

reflection Just read the sutras, I've seen it quoted 100 times on these forums, and I don't for a minute think its very likely you don't know exactly what I am talking about, and no It was not an exact quote, but a paraphrase from memory. Could you please explain you're seeming mistranslation of sabbe dhamma anatta, i edited my previous post with a question for you,
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by lyndon taylor »

Here's one of our resident Bhikkus explaining that sabbe dhamma anatta, means all dhammas are not self, not everything is not self, who would in their right mind expect dhammas to be self;;

Re: What is meant by “Sabbe Dhamma Anatta”
Unread postby Dhammanando » Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:51 pm

SarathW wrote:
All compounds are devoid of self.

Some translate the phrase sabbe dhamma literally as "all phenomena"
(both compound and non-compound). This is not true. According to Lord
Buddha's Teaching in the Dhammapada Pali text, as interpreted by the
original arahant commentators and by the most recent translators
(Carter and Palihawadana 1987) 2, the words sabbe dhamma , in this
context, refer only to the Five Aggregates . These are sankhara or
compounds. Thus, the reference excludes pure, non-compound aspects of
nature such as nibbana.


The writer you quote seems to be treating the Dhammapada Commentary's interpretation (which he approves of) as if it were the sole and normative definition of dhammā in this context. But in fact it's unique and exceptional. Everywhere else the commentaries support the view that the writer rejects, the usual gloss being:

'Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā' ti sabbe tebhūmakasaṅkhārā aniccā.
'Sabbe dhammā anattā' ti sabbe catubhūmakadhammā anattā.

'All saṅkhāras are impermanent' means that all saṅkhāras belonging to the three planes are impermanent.
'All dhammas are not self' means that all dhammas belonging to the four planes are not self.
(SA.ii.318; )

The three planes are those of sense-desires, refined-form and formlessness. The four planes are the same with the addition of the supramundane.
...and this thought arose in the mind of the Blessed One:
“Who lives without reverence lives miserably.”
— Uruvela Sutta, A.ii.20

It were endless to dispute upon everything that is disputable.
— William Penn Some Fruits of Solitude,
User avatar
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by reflection »

Dhamma has many meanings, but the meaning always depends on context. For example, dhamma as meaning "the teaching" is obviously not what was meant in the context of "sabbe dhamma anatta". It can be translated as "everything" which makes sense in context of the quote and in context of the suttas. It also makes sense if you see that quote I gave above: all self assumptions lie in the aggregates, and as we know (at least theoretically) the aggregates are not self, then logically everything is not self.

Now I'm not in favor of letting it all depend on a single line of text and I do recognize "dhamma" can be interpreted a couple of ways, but to me there is no reason to call the interpretation "everything" to be ridiculous. Either way interpreting it differently (which I respect and will not call ridiculous...) says nothing directly about the existence of a self anyway. It is denying the self in "dhamma" (however one interprets it) but is not acknowledging the self in anything else. Just like denying the self in the body does not acknowledge it in any other aggregate.


I honestly don't know the quote where the Buddha says no self is wrong view, and I have read quite a lot of suttas. So please now I clarified myself, will you also do so, so people can get a balanced perspective on things?
User avatar
hgg
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by hgg »

If there is absolutely no self wouldn't that be nihilism?

How can anyone explain the fact that Buddha could recall previous rebirths,
if there is absolutely no self. He connected the previous rebirths with his current
body. This by itself tells us that there is a connective agent between rebirths.

The statement that the aggregates are not self (which is true) does not imply that there is no self at all.
hgg2016.
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by SamKR »

hgg wrote: but the statement "What is unsatisfactory, that is not self", that I cannot understand.
Whatever arises is dependently arisen.
Whatever is dependently arisen, is subject to change and pass away and even cease (that is not-permanent).
Whatever is dependently arisen (ie., not-permanent), is Dukkha.
Whatever is dependently arisen (ie., not-permanent), is not-self (and, is not fit to be viewed as mine, I, my self).
Therefore, whatever is Dukkha (ie., dependently arisen, not-permanent) is not-self (and, is not fit to be viewed as mine, I, my self).
Whatever is not-self is, empty.

Self is a view, an assumption, a conceving due to ignorance - imposed upon the five aggregates. Being an assumption it is not a (metaphysical) "reality".
"This is self" is a wrong view.
"There is self" is a wrong view.
"There is no self" is a view (It can be merely a view, a wrong view, or a right view, depending upon the context).
"This is not self" is a right view.
We need to avoid views and wrong views, and only try to adopt right views.
Last edited by SamKR on Sun Jul 28, 2013 4:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by lyndon taylor »

hgg wrote:If there is absolutely no self wouldn't that be nihilism?

How can anyone explain the fact that Buddha could recall previous rebirths,
if there is absolutely no self. He connected the previous rebirths with his current
body. This by itself tells us that there is a connective agent between rebirths.

The statement that the aggregates are not self (which is true) does not imply that there is no self at all.
Yes the denial of self is considered Nihilism, the Hindu concept of an eternal soul Atman is considered Eternalism, that's why the buddha taught the middle path, denying Nihilism, or Eternalism.

The nihilistic, absolutely no self of any kind belief, does not allow for much of anything to pass on to the next life, so it is in essence almost no rebirth, ala almost Atheism

For something to pass on after birth, that something must almost have to be self, Mahayana tradititions are more literal about this, But a good section of Therevada are very strong believers in rebirth also.

Ive been in a month long debate on freesangha.com between mostly just two individuals, a strong no self supporter, and a strong self supporter, both very versed in scriptures, tons and tons of scriptural quotes, it really comes down to who are you going to believe, If you really want to live your life believing you have no self, go ahead, but I don't see how you would get anything done, as you have no self telling you to do it, In other words online I've never met a non self supporter that strikes me as having even overcome the 5 agreggates, on the other hand the vehemnetly pro self people don't seem any more enlightened either.

I think I can clearly state there is strong scriptural evidence to support both positions, but its harder to support a true self (not the agreaggets) position from purely Therevada pali canon scripture, its much hard to defend a completely non self position from many Mahayana scriptures. I think you have the absolute right to make up you own mind on this, and not feel like theres only one right way to view it. Its not like a teaching that almost all the schools agree on, like the 5 precepts or 8fld path, theres no disagreement on them, they are what Buddhism is about, no self on the other hand is a grey area, kind of like the debate on the higgs Boson or God particle, some people believe in it, some don't and some don't care.

Anyway all the schools seem to agree that the 5 agreaggetes do not constitute your real self, so concentrate on living without the belief that the 5 agreaggates are you and you're halfway there. IMHO
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by SamKR »

lyndon taylor wrote:\
For something to pass on after birth, that something must almost have to be self, Mahayana tradititions are more literal about this, But a good section of Therevada are very strong believers in rebirth also.
For birth, there does not have to be "something" that is a (ontological) self. A lingering view of self is enough for birth and all Dukkha.
Last edited by SamKR on Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by reflection »

hgg wrote:If there is absolutely no self wouldn't that be nihilism?

How can anyone explain the fact that Buddha could recall previous rebirths,
if there is absolutely no self. He connected the previous rebirths with his current
body. This by itself tells us that there is a connective agent between rebirths.
Nihilism would be "nothing exists" - views like that. But a view of no self is not denying that. It just says that no self exist. Other things may well exist.
"'Everything exists, this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
A memory does not need an agent, it merely needs a connection. Things are connected without agent, without self or soul. This is what dependent origination describes, which I'm not going into detail here, but just to say this is what continues the quote above. And this is what happens always when the Buddha taught the middle way between 'existence' and 'non-existence' (eternalism/nihilism), he taught dependent origination; how things arise dependent upon each other (without a self).
"'Everything exists, this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme.
Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata[10] teaches a doctrine of the middle: Conditioned by ignorance are the formations. etc. (describing dependent origination)

The statement that the aggregates are not self (which is true) does not imply that there is no self at all.
It does imply there is no self. Not in the statement itself, because philosophically people will always find ways around things. But if applied to your own meditation, it'll be more clear that you can't find anything outside of the aggregates. For one thing, because it's not possible to find something without consciousness, which itself is an aggregate.

This takes quite a deep meditation, to see honestly. Because when the mind is under the five hindrances, it will delude itself into seeing things that are not there. Assuming self in what is not a self, beauty in what is suffering, permanence in what is impermanent. But if you get an understanding by stilling the mind, you don't have to just assume a point of view based on texts or based upon intellectual reasoning.
User avatar
hgg
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by hgg »

I guess you are right about nihilism.

Having said that, you cannot prove a negative, so you cannot really say with 100% certainty that no self exists.
(you cannot prove that God does not exist, you cannot prove that green cats with pink ears do not exist)
Even if you cannot find anything outside the aggregates in deep meditation, this does not mean it does not
exist.

In the case of previous births and dependent origination, if there is no connective agent, then do you
mean that Buddha was able to describe previous rebirths by tracing back all the trillions causes and effects of its
current birth?
hgg2016.
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by mal4mac »

"If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress. As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

To summarise Bhikku Thanissaro's main points:

1) When the Buddha is asked to take a position on the question of whether or not there is a self, he refuses to answer.

2) The passages which state there is no self covers all of describable reality.

3) Views that there is no self are ranked with views that there is a self as a "fetter of views", and both are best avoided.

4) The enlightened person sees a reality in which notions like self & no-self are redundant.

From this, it seems to me, that If you "dis-identify oneself from all phenomena" then you dis identify from any possible experience of "goodness within" or "Buddha mind". There is nothing you can point to, or talk about, as being "self" or "part of self".

If I start worrying whether I have "enough goodness" inside or "have I experienced Buddha mind?" then I worry that I will be just making more suffering for myself; I feel it would just lead me to more confusion. So the "Buddha's silence", and dis-identifying from all phenomena (including possible intimations of "goodness" and "Buddha mind"...) seems the best path for me, today :)
- Mal
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by reflection »

hgg wrote:I guess you are right about nihilism.

Having said that, you cannot prove a negative, so you cannot really say with 100% certainty that no self exists.
(you cannot prove that God does not exist, you cannot prove that green cats with pink ears do not exist)
Even if you cannot find anything outside the aggregates in deep meditation, this does not mean it does not
exist.

In the case of previous births and dependent origination, if there is no connective agent, then do you
mean that Buddha was able to describe previous rebirths by tracing back all the trillions causes and effects of its
current birth?
From an intellectual point of view you can't say something like that with certainty, but you can't apply this logic to meditation. It is not just seeing the aggregates are no self, but also how the view of self is always constructed upon them and not on something else, how it arises, why it was sustained, what it sustains; all these things that with all intellect in the world somebody won't understand or even come to think about.

I mean a memory arises from causes and conditions that are also not self. A memory is a fabrication that is perceived. You can sort of see that when you are remembering something that is a bit vague in your memory, you start to construct things based upon other things, adding and removing things, slowly putting together the memory. A clear memory is not too much different. Also things like personality, preferences and such are all not stored in a central self, they are just patterns that occur, based upon conditions. The recollection of previous lives is on another level, but in a similar way it is possible without a self, because the recollection itself is a process that occurs due to conditions. If the conditions are not there, the recollection is not there.
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by santa100 »

hgg wrote:In the case of previous births and dependent origination, if there is no connective agent, then do you
mean that Buddha was able to describe previous rebirths by tracing back all the trillions causes and effects of its
current birth?
The Buddha's teaching avoids the 2 extremes of eternalism and nihilism. From MN 11 ( http://palicanon.org/index.php/sutta-pi ... ion-s-roar ):
Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being
Ven. Bodhi noted:
The view of being (bhavadiṭṭ) is eternalism, the belief in an eternal self; the view of non-being (vibhavadiṭṭhi) is annihilationism, the denial of any principle of continuity as a basis for rebirth and kammic retribution. The adoption of one view entailing opposition to the other ties up with the earlier statement that the goal is for one who does not favour and oppose.
So, denying the principle of continuity will lead one to Nihilism while attaching the eternal "self" label onto it will lead one to Eternalism. Contemplating the 3 characteristics based on paticcasamuppada(dependent arising) will allow one to tread safely on the middle path..
Post Reply