Sure, there is a big difference between intellectual understanding and insight. But I saying that "no-self" represents the correct intellectual understanding, based on the teachings, and that holds true for both Theravada and Mahayana, given that sunyata is a development of anatta.Saengnapha wrote:I don't find that ambiguity in not self. Not self is not self, not something else, or the implication that something else might be self. What I mean about taking a position of no self or not self is the difference between having an intellectual understanding of there being no existing self and the direct experience of it which has no position because there is none needed or conceptualized, ie., Suchness. I hope I'm not being too abstract here. Maybe my Mahayana tendencies might be showing a bit.Spiny Norman wrote:But as previously discussed, "sabbe dhamma anatta" clarifies that there is no self to be found, not even "in" Nibbana. And paticca-samuppada ( "When this is, that is..", ie conditionality ) isn't compatible with an abiding self, soul or essence. I don't "no-self" as taking a position here, I just see it as the logical conclusion from teachings like these. The difficulty I see with "not-self" is a sense of ambiguity, ie the aggregates are not self, but something else might be. The view that there is something else which is a self would be Hinduism, not Buddhism.Saengnapha wrote:This is a very subtle subject that often gets overlooked. Of course, the Buddha taught impermanence and with that the idea that there is an existent someone was erroneous. Yet, taking the position of there being no self, can be contrasted with the position of self existing. Since self neither exists or doesn't exist is something to be debated only when dependent origination is not established. Those who do establish it, do not think in terms of is or isn't, and so forth. This is an insight much debated and very difficult to experience.
the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
Buddha save me from new-agers!
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
I know you think nirvana is annihilation. I don't, that's the practical difference.Spiny Norman wrote:OK, but what is the practical difference between that, and "no-self"? I'm not seeing one.cappuccino wrote:All isn't self to begin with, is right view.
Nirvana is an everlasting state.
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
I have always read 'Not Self' as opposed to 'No Self'.cappuccino wrote:No self is flawed, it hints at annihilation.Spiny Norman wrote:But "sabbe dhamma anatta" is saying there is no self anywhere, not even in Nibbana.
The correct, is not self. Body isn't self, consciousness isn't self, etc.
Of course we have a 'self'....but its mode of existence is deceptive. It appears to be a permanent non-dependent related phenomena. Actually its more of an appearance to mind - like a rainbow (as the Tibetans might say).
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
I don't have a view either way on this, and I think the suttas are rather ambiguous. But I don't see the relevance of this point, we are discussing whether no-self is the correct conclusion to draw from the teachings, not whether Nibbana is eternal.cappuccino wrote:I know you think nirvana is annihilation. I don't, that's the practical difference.Spiny Norman wrote:OK, but what is the practical difference between that, and "no-self"? I'm not seeing one.cappuccino wrote:All isn't self to begin with, is right view.
Nirvana is an everlasting state.
"Sabbe dhamma anatta" indicates that if Nibbana is eternal then it must be impersonal, not involving an abiding self or soul or personal essence.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
Nirvana is an everlasting state.
Sorry if I am being naive here...
Isn't 'No' self a self defeating statement? Our subjective experience is of having a self though we know it doesn't actually 'exist' as such. So can we really say 'No' self? As we cannot identify the self, as its 'un-findable' and we can only ever identify things its not...isn't 'Not' self more viable an angle?
BW
M...
Hey Spiny,I don't have a view either way on this, and I think the suttas are rather ambiguous. But I don't see the relevance of this point, we are discussing whether no-self is the correct conclusion to draw from the teachings, not whether Nibbana is eternal.
Sorry if I am being naive here...
Isn't 'No' self a self defeating statement? Our subjective experience is of having a self though we know it doesn't actually 'exist' as such. So can we really say 'No' self? As we cannot identify the self, as its 'un-findable' and we can only ever identify things its not...isn't 'Not' self more viable an angle?
BW
M...
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
As previously explained, I think "not-self" is ambiguous and confusing, since it allows for the possibility of a self "outside" the aggregates. I think "no-self" ( absence of self ) is what the suttas describe - for example "sabbe dhamma anatta", pattica-samuppada ( conditionality ), the fetters of self-view and conceit, and so on.Myotai wrote:Nirvana is an everlasting state.Hey Spiny,I don't have a view either way on this, and I think the suttas are rather ambiguous. But I don't see the relevance of this point, we are discussing whether no-self is the correct conclusion to draw from the teachings, not whether Nibbana is eternal.
Sorry if I am being naive here...
Isn't 'No' self a self defeating statement? Our subjective experience is of having a self though we know it doesn't actually 'exist' as such. So can we really say 'No' self? As we cannot identify the self, as its 'un-findable' and we can only ever identify things its not...isn't 'Not' self more viable an angle?
BW
M...
Buddha save me from new-agers!
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
Not self is the teaching rather than no self
as explained in the Ananda Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
as explained in the Ananda Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
“This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful,
refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.”
- the Blessed One
refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.”
- the Blessed One
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
Not self is far from ambiguous. The clear implication is that the self is unfindable. 'Not' within and 'Not' outside the Skandhas. But nonetheless appears to our mind (like everything else really....including 'mind').Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:14 pm
As previously explained, I think "not-self" is ambiguous and confusing, since it allows for the possibility of a self "outside" the aggregates. I think "no-self" ( absence of self ) is what the suttas describe - for example "sabbe dhamma anatta", pattica-samuppada ( conditionality ), the fetters of self-view and conceit, and so on.
No self fly's in the face of our own subjective experience.
'Not' leaves room for investigation (red Herring) whereas 'No' is a dead end and illogical (in the face of our experience).
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
Awakening implies you're dreaming…
dreaming yourself.
Whatever you think of yourself:
good, bad, indifferent,
is a dream.
dreaming yourself.
Whatever you think of yourself:
good, bad, indifferent,
is a dream.
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
Not self or no self is a simple statement of fact in the same vein as impermanence is a fact. Impermanence is easier to intellectually understand than not self or no self because we are deeply ingrained to think that there is a self somewhere in the centre of all our experiences. Through the contemplation of dependent origination and mindfulness of your own experience, you begin to see that this self, this centre, is an illusion. Nitpicking no or not is a waste of energy, but carry on if you have to.Myotai wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:58 pmNot self is far from ambiguous. The clear implication is that the self is unfindable. 'Not' within and 'Not' outside the Skandhas. But nonetheless appears to our mind (like everything else really....including 'mind').Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:14 pm
As previously explained, I think "not-self" is ambiguous and confusing, since it allows for the possibility of a self "outside" the aggregates. I think "no-self" ( absence of self ) is what the suttas describe - for example "sabbe dhamma anatta", pattica-samuppada ( conditionality ), the fetters of self-view and conceit, and so on.
No self fly's in the face of our own subjective experience.
'Not' leaves room for investigation (red Herring) whereas 'No' is a dead end and illogical (in the face of our experience).
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
Saengnapha wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:01 amNot self or no self is a simple statement of fact in the same vein as impermanence is a fact. Impermanence is easier to intellectually understand than not self or no self because we are deeply ingrained to think that there is a self somewhere in the centre of all our experiences. Through the contemplation of dependent origination and mindfulness of your own experience, you begin to see that this self, this centre, is an illusion. Nitpicking no or not is a waste of energy, but carry on if you have to.Myotai wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:58 pmNot self is far from ambiguous. The clear implication is that the self is unfindable. 'Not' within and 'Not' outside the Skandhas. But nonetheless appears to our mind (like everything else really....including 'mind').Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:14 pm
As previously explained, I think "not-self" is ambiguous and confusing, since it allows for the possibility of a self "outside" the aggregates. I think "no-self" ( absence of self ) is what the suttas describe - for example "sabbe dhamma anatta", pattica-samuppada ( conditionality ), the fetters of self-view and conceit, and so on.
No self fly's in the face of our own subjective experience.
'Not' leaves room for investigation (red Herring) whereas 'No' is a dead end and illogical (in the face of our experience).
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
Nirvana is cannot be caught in terms as eternal. It is complete cessation without a remainder. Like a seed that is burnt by the fire of knowledge.
Nirvana is described completely in it's core by various Arhats in the following statement;
"Yam kinki samudayadhamma sabbam tam nirodha dhamma". "That which was bound take various birth and death in series like a river with it's Mass of water continuously flowing to the eternal existence. But when True wisdom or Tathagata or Wisdom or Eightfold path arises, that which is bound will completely unbound and thus annihilated."
Question is there what is there to bound? The answer is all the perception, feeling, sensation, five elements and chain of cause( Desire and Avidya).
All these make a whole becoming of a being.
Vidya arises, then chain of causation broke down to peices, clearly visible to the eye of wisdom in front of him. That's why it is called insight of impermanence. This is the Nirvana. The final extiction. After that nothing to be done.
So called supernatural powers and other debates on who am I, where is this world come from, what happens after death is all meaningless question of the quest of delusion. Wise always stay that aside and only seek towards his goal as cessation.
Nirvana is described completely in it's core by various Arhats in the following statement;
"Yam kinki samudayadhamma sabbam tam nirodha dhamma". "That which was bound take various birth and death in series like a river with it's Mass of water continuously flowing to the eternal existence. But when True wisdom or Tathagata or Wisdom or Eightfold path arises, that which is bound will completely unbound and thus annihilated."
Question is there what is there to bound? The answer is all the perception, feeling, sensation, five elements and chain of cause( Desire and Avidya).
All these make a whole becoming of a being.
Vidya arises, then chain of causation broke down to peices, clearly visible to the eye of wisdom in front of him. That's why it is called insight of impermanence. This is the Nirvana. The final extiction. After that nothing to be done.
So called supernatural powers and other debates on who am I, where is this world come from, what happens after death is all meaningless question of the quest of delusion. Wise always stay that aside and only seek towards his goal as cessation.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
but if nirvana is annihilation, you would be insane to seek it
rather this teaching should lead to sanity
rather this teaching should lead to sanity
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
And yet the Sunna Sutta clearly says no self...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!