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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

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

Post by daverupa »

hgg wrote:
"since a self is, by definition, satisfactory unto itself,"
But who defined that?
The character of the self in ancient India

A Note on Attā in the Alagaddūpama Sutta

In short: everyone else the Buddha had discourse with. The Buddha was responding to these views, as well as discussing the fetters of sakkayaditthi and asmimana, when speaking on the self; his main objective was to ensure that people knew about efficacious action, since in general the various self-theories entailed that some part of oneself was beyond being affected by action. The Buddhist training program displays idapaccayata, by contrast.
Last edited by daverupa on Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
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 »

One of the main points i would like to make is that "self" is just a word, a word that can have a lot of meanings, both in the buddha's time(atman) and today(self), for us to assume we understand exactly what self(atman) meant to the Buddha, and that it is the same as what self (english) means to us, may be a big mistake. And just to assume that what self means to the OP, and what self means to Reflection, and what self means to me are the same thing, once again may be a big mistake, the word self might have totally different meanings to all of us.

Even within the Therevada tradition and most definetly within the Mahayana tradition, there are devout, even enlightened teachers that believe in some kind of self, and at the same time there are other devout, even enlightened teachers that believe there is no kind of self whatsover. That is a fact, i am not making this up.

So it might seem that denying the existence of any kind of self whatsoever, is possible, and your right to believe, but it definetly is not a prerequisite for enlightenment, because there are both enlightened teachers that see it one way or the other.

The one thing they do seem to agree on is that the 5 agreaggates are not a part of the self, so as I said before if we concentrate on that, we are halfway there.
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
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 »

reflection wrote:
hgg wrote:I guess you are right about nihilism.

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
That is the correct statement I think. That in meditation you will see how the aggregates construct the illusion of self all the time.
As I said before, I am not talking about that kind of illusory self. There might be another kind of self, not eternal, totally unknown to us
which is the backbone of dependent origination. It might even have a different name. There must be a connection between all rebirths.
If the connection is just the dependent arising, then the act of finding out information about past rebirths is an amazing feat indeed!
hgg2016.
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 »

daverupa wrote:
hgg wrote:
"since a self is, by definition, satisfactory unto itself,"
But who defined that?
The character of the self in ancient India

A Note on Attā in the Alagaddūpama Sutta

In short: everyone else the Buddha had discourse with. The Buddha was responding to these views, as well as discussing the fetters of sakkayaditthi and asmimana, when speaking on the self; his main objective was to ensure that people knew about efficacious action, since in general the various self-theories entailed that some part of oneself was beyond being affected by action. The Buddhist training program displays idapaccayata, by contrast.
The conclusion of the second citation above;

E. J. Thomas states,27 in the Anattalakkhaṇa-sutta the Buddha does not
specifically deny the existence of the attā. The sutta is merely a denial that the khandhas
were ātman, whatever that term means. It may be true to say that the Buddha does not
specifically deny the existence of the attā anywhere in the Pāli canon, in the sense that he
does not state explicitly ‘The attā does not exist’. As stated above, however, in the AS he
does speak of the men who grieve over the loss of his attā as grieving about something
which does not exist internally. He also draws attention to the folly of someone who
holds the view that the world and the attā are the same if it can be shown that attā and
some thing belonging to attā are not to be found, and he then goes on to prove to the
satisfaction of his audience that they are not to be found.

now a thought popped into my head about the meaning to the Buddha of atta(self)

just for the sake of arguement, what if atta meant not self, but me, mine, then the whole discourse would not be a denial of self but rather that anything was mine, or truly belongs to me, that would make perfect sense to me, we do not own our bodies, we do not own our senses or what our senses perceive, we do not even own our thoughts or our mind.

I'm not saying this is the meaning of atta, but suppose it was, what if atta(self) has been mistranslated and had a completely dfferent meaning than we thought it did to the Buddha, while 100,000s of monks can actually read some pali, it is basically a dead language that hasn't really been spoken for almost 2000 years, maybe some meanings were lost along the way, who knows, that's why its important to work out these things in meditation and contemplation, and get them to make sense to you, not just accept them because such and such a translation(which may be incorrect) says so.

Buddhism was traditionally taught by enlightened or somewhat enlightened teachers to students, not from reading pali scriptures, because the lay people mostly couldn't read pali, nor could the novice monks, this internet idea of learning Buddhism from often completely unenlightened lay people who like to quote this or that translation of scripture, and belittle those that speak from there own learning and aren't able to quote sutra and verse, has gone a bit too far IMHO Do your best to sort out this whole non self business, but in the big picture, there are really basic teachings like the 4 noble truths, the Lay precepts, and the 8 fold Path, and most importantly practising love and compassion. these things are much much more important than which guru or Ajahn's version of the no self teaching you follow, its just not as important as the basic stuff, Once you excel at all the basic stuff, by all means turn your attention to non self, until then, you have no need to worry your"self" about it, 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/
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 »

I've actually taken this idea of anatta meaning not mine instead of not self, and started a new thread, so i'll retreat form this thread a bit and welcome anyone to read and comment on my new thread; What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine
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
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 think that the initial question has not yet been answered.
"Material form monks, is impermanent. Whatever is impermanent, that is unsatisfactory.
What is unsatisfactory, that is not self. What is not self, should be regarded, 'This is not
mine, I am not this, this is not my self.' One should discern it as it really is through perfect
wisdom." - S.iii.21
I keep coming back because I think this paragraph is repeated quite a lot in the suttas in one form or the other
and I think that is an important one.

The problem is that Buddha uses a double negation in the same sentence "unsatisfactory" and "not self"
without defining either of the positive terms, especially "self". From other writings if we assume that "self"
is the illusion constantly created by the five aggregates, then what exactly is "not self" ???
(which can also have a property like the unsatisfactoriness)

Further, I am also starting to question the previous statement "whatever is impermanent, that is unsatisfactory"
It looks to me that if pain or sorrow are impermanent then they are not exactly unsatisfactory because they will
end, but they are not satisfactory as well because we are experiencing them now.

The main point that Buddha is trying to make is that "Material form ... is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self"
but I cannot understand how he concludes that, since even the statement "is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self"
is self contradictory. (e.g "I am not this", since there is no "I" how can "I am not this"? etc)

All this confusion is the result of not properly explaining the terms that he used like unsatisfactory and not-self.
Maybe he was trying to express in words something that could not really be expressed by language.

Does anybody know if there exist any other Pali translations for the same or a similar statement?

Thank you.
hgg2016.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

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

Post by tiltbillings »

hgg wrote: The main point that Buddha is trying to make is that "Material form ... is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self"
but I cannot understand how he concludes that, since even the statement "is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self"
is self contradictory. (e.g "I am not this", since there is no "I" how can "I am not this"? etc)
The problem is that we are stuck with the sense of "I" until we attain some degree of ariya status. Basically, what the Buddha is asking you to do is to take a look at what you are experiencing. And we start from where we are, which is from a place of "I." That cannot be helped, and so we have what might seem to be contradictory. The "I" cannot be wished away or thought away, you can tell it where to get off, but it won't. It is a matter, however, of paying attention to it in a number differing ways that exposes the nature of the "I," allowing one to eventually see it for what it is in fact, and allowing us to bit by bit let go of it.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

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

Post by reflection »

There is no double negation. "Suffering" is the more common translation for what you call unsatisfactory; the word is dukkha. Dukkha is all suffering from the very coarse to the tiniest. And dukkha is explained in multiple ways, one of them being this very "what is impermanent is dukkha". So impermanence and dukkha are almost synonymous to each other: if you understand one you understand the other. In other words, everything that is inconstant, that arises and passes away is suffering, is not real happiness and will not be able to provide that either. Impermanence does not just mean things being replaced by something else, it also means things have the potential for passing away totally. In other words, the aggregates can totally disappear and so they can't be a self (not self is not a thing but simply the negation of a self) and so they hold no potential for real happiness.

But as I've said before, and as tiltbillings also explains here above, it has to come from looking at your own experience. The Buddha was indeed trying to explain something beyond words. As the suttas say, it is beyond conjecture/logical reasoning. You can have 100 explanations and 100 translations but not be any closer to understanding.

:anjali:
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 »

There was a double negation but with the first substitution its much better.
The word suffering (Dukkha) is more appropriate. That was the easy part. Now,

What is suffering, that is not self.
(what is suffering, that is the negation of a self)

Do you really understand the above sentence?
I don't.

The only alternative that makes sense to me is the following:
-suffering is the illusory self-
hgg2016.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

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

Post by daverupa »

Did you read the links I posted earlier? Did they not help?

(Also, trying to massage these sentences in these ways without using the Pali is going to be disastrous.)
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
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:There was a double negation but with the first substitution its much better.
The word suffering (Dukkha) is more appropriate. That was the easy part. Now,

What is suffering, that is not self.
(what is suffering, that is the negation of a self)

Do you really understand the above sentence?
I don't.

The only alternative that makes sense to me is the following:
-suffering is the illusory self-
Don't try to understand the sentence, but try to see what it is pointing to. If you want to know, you have to investigate what you take to be 'you' on a deep level beyond thoughts. Investigate attachments, the aggregates, meditate, walk the path. You are still at the level of intellect for which we've warned you multiple times won't cut it. It's like fishing in the desert. And the Buddha said the same thing. His path is not an intellectual challenge. The insights that make you understand these sentences in their context won't arise this way.

I hope you understand this is not to put you off, but that I say it to help you see that the way you are approaching things now is not fruitful. Even if you get close, no sigar.

But for what it's worth: What is suffering (aka the aggregates), that is not a self (aka that is not 'you' or 'yours'). You shouldn't read it as "suffering is not a self" (although that is also true).

:anjali:
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 »

Thank you for your help.
hgg2016.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

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

Post by reflection »

I'm happy to, and hope it helps you. Again, not judging you in any way. I think a lot of practitioners (mainly Western ones) at some time have to see the limited scope of intellectual pursuit. I know I did. But the teachings only make sense if you put them into context of the entire 8-fold path. The practices of meditation and virtue are there for a reason.

:anjali:
User avatar
Zenainder
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 11:10 am

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

Post by Zenainder »

OP,

Keep in mind the three universal truths:
Life is suffering (dukkha), temporary (anicca) and not self (anatta).

The sequence that ignorance typically follows is resistance to these truths:
first to the temporal state, attempting to make permanent all pleasant experiences.

The Buddha thus stated that anything that is temporary is unsatisfactory as it will require a longing for it after it ceases or during unpleasant experiences a dual state of aversion of "this" and a longing for "otherwise". Vice versa. It is because we know pain that we are addicted to pleasure.

Establishing:
Anything that is temporary is unsatisfying.

Ignorance associates an identity to "pleasant" states, thus "I am this", however since the point has already been established regarding the temporary and dissatisfaction, we are left with "I am not this", which is the common ignorant association of "unpleasant" states. It then follows that because these states are all fluxes (temporary) they are unsatisfactory and are not self.

Establishing:
Anything that is unsatisfying is not self.

"One should discern it as it really is through perfect wisdom" is a very important follow up statement to these thing as seeing things as they are is the practice that results in insight of the truth within regarding annica, anatta, and dukkha.

In the end, how the Buddha got from point "a to b" is the conversation was regarding the three universal truths.

P.S.
I suppose it would possible if there was permanence there could be a self and thus happiness remains, however this is exactly how ignorance is defined in Buddhism.
barcsimalsi
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:33 am

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

Post by barcsimalsi »

I think the Buddha's interpretation of what is "self" equates to the meaning of some entity being omnipotent.
Post Reply