Anatta, Self?

[daverupa]

Just clinging, and the cessation of clinging.

[Thisperson]

I'm trying to work out the reason why the buddha didn't take the stance there is no self

He didn't take an annihilationist stance, but as I just cited, "no self" was declared.

---

Notice that there's a gap between the cessation of sakkaya-ditthi & the cessation of asmi-mana. So, even for a stream-entrant, they're not all the way on top of realizing this for themselves, but they aren't misled by personality issues such as "do I exist? do I not exist?" They are still misled by conceit, however, and this is addressed by noticing non-self directly. In the interim, greed and hate are attenuated & eliminated, and in fact this has to happen before asmi-mana is finally eradicated.

So engaging with the fact of anatta is an ongoing process for the whole of the Path, but once annihilationism-view is no longer a danger, it is to be contemplated & eventually seen directly for oneself, as a fact of the way things are.

Right.

It may be helpful for us to remember that the Buddha taught the dhamma on a level of what would be helpful to the specific student that was being taught. The Buddha didn't answer Vacchagotta because it would not have helped him in any way to understand the dhamma. An answer in the affirmative would have led him to the wrong view of eternalism while an answer in the negative would have led to the wrong view of annihilationism.

If, Ānanda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, ‘Is there a self?’ I had answered, ‘There is a self,’ would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that ‘all phenomena are nonself’?”

“No, venerable sir.”

He asks Ananda whether the teaching of a doctrine of self would be consistent with the knowledge of anatta. I believe at this point Ananda was already (at the least) a stream entrant (he gained stream entry on his first rains retreat) so he knew from experience the knowledge of anatta. This knowledge is what lead to the initial question of why the Buddha did not teach the notion of anatta to Vacchagotta.

“And if, when I was asked by him, ‘Is there no self?’ I had answered, ‘There is no self,’ the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, ‘It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.’”

Again he points out that Vacchagotta would not have benefited from the teaching of anatta. It would have lead him into deeper confusion.

[SarathW]

What do we mean by Self in this topic?
What is the definition of self?

[pegembara]

A direct answer there is no self will not break the illusion for those who has sakkayaditthi. So the Buddha used the indirect method by pointing out ways in which we identify and create a self out of the 5 aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness.

The fortress of self is so strong that a direct assault is bound to fail. One way the Buddha's ingenuity is exemplified is in the Anattalakkhana Sutta where He carried out the deconstruction of the fortress. To reach this stage, the mind has to be "prepared" to accept this truth.

Another concept for self is a being. This "being" that was born, grows old, sick and finally dies.

"'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up[1] there, tied up[2] there, one is said to be 'a being.'[3]

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

"In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding."

Satta Sutta

[SarathW]

I'm sure many of you may be tired of this discussion but I find interesting so I'll go ahead, I have been pondering the reason why the buddha was silent when asked if there s a self or if there is no self, I came to the conclusion that it would be problematic to take either side, there is no basis to assert that the self is one or all of the five aggregates as they all work independently and are all equally impermanent, to assert an immortal soul (self) is just a mental construct with no basis in experience. The reason for not taking the stance there is no self seems less obvious bearing in mind the characteristic of anatta (not-self?) can anyone think of any reasons why he didn't take the stance there is no self?

Buddha was silent because it was a wrong question. There is no answer to a wrong question but only to be silent.
Say a man ask another man (who loves his wife a lot and never miss treated her) "" Have you stoped beating your wife?"
It is a wrong question and the first man can't answer it yes or no.

[tamlinugent]

Thanks for the responses good points!

[cobwith]

He only refused to answer that question once in the whole of the Canon, and that was because Vacchagotta would have thought that it was siding with the annihilationists. But in fact, that very Sutta also has the Buddha explaining that to Ananda.

There is some ambiguity and elusiveness attached to this sutta; as it is originaly called Atthatta sutta (Cause sutta,) in lieu of Ananda sutta.
Indeed, there is only a single pali reference to Atta (Self) in this sutta, namely at the end of it:
'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'.

All previous references to so called "Self" and "no Self" are instead references to atthatta or natthatta; to wit "cause" and "no cause". Indeed, the following should be read:
- "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a cause?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
- "Then is there no cause?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

instead of reading:
- "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
- "Then is there no self?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

That does not minimize the importance of this sutta regarding the Self (Atta).
It emphasizes the importance of this Self as being one of the causes (atthatta,) but not an eternalist one. A Self that is (as phenomena are) unpermanent, unstable, uneternal, unimmutable.
At the same time, it unveils the fact that, if it is a cause, it has no significance in the knowledge that all phenomena are not-self (Anatta).

I guess we must unbind from the Self, as much as from phenomena (matter) to get to the "other world".

"Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

[samseva]

Atthatta sutta[/url][/b] (Cause sutta,) in lieu of Ananda sutta.
Indeed, there is only a single pali reference to Atta (Self) in this sutta, namely at the end of it:
'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'.

All previous references to so called "Self" and "no Self" are instead references to atthatta or natthatta; to wit "cause" and "no cause". Indeed, the following should be read:
- "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a cause?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
- "Then is there no cause?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

[...]

That is an interesting observation. Do you have more information about this?

[cobwith]

Do you have more information about this?

What kind of information?
Do you mean where I got the meaning of Atthata - I got it from the Pali text society's Pali-English dictionary:
Atthatta (nt.) [abstract from attha] reason, cause.
As far as the original text in Pali, you can get it here: Atthatta sutta .
Regards.

[samseva]

What kind of information?
Do you mean where I got the meaning of Atthata - I got it from the Pali text society's Pali-English dictionary:
Atthatta (nt.) [abstract from attha] reason, cause.
As far as the original text in Pali, you can get it from my previous link (Atthata sutta).
Regards.

I found it interesting that the Sutta was mistranslated, especially for such important terms. I was asking if you know if this has been discussed elsewhere?

[cobwith]

I found it interesting that the Sutta was mistranslated, especially for such important terms. I was asking if you know if this has been discussed elsewhere?

Not that I know of. I only have this habit to check the original text in Pali, when concepts are of importance - and it happens that I could not find much Atta in that text, but just one reference.
I guess Thanissaro Bhikkhu considered Self as being a cause of phenomena and anatta.

[samseva]

I found it interesting that the Sutta was mistranslated, especially for such important terms. I was asking if you know if this has been discussed elsewhere?

Not that I know of. I only have this habit to check the original text in Pali, when concepts are of importance - and it happens that I could not find much Atta in that text, but just one reference.
I guess Thanissaro Bhikkhu considered Self as being a cause of phenomena (matter) and anatta.

Have you compared the passage with the works of other translators, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi?

[cobwith]

Have you compared the passage with the works of other translators, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi?

I have tried to find that sutta on the great Metta.lk site - translation by Bhikkhuni Uppalavanna - but could not find it.
If you know any urls, where to find other translations (e.g. Bhikkhu Bodhi), I should be glad to hear from you.

[samseva]

I have tried to find that sutta on the great Metta.lk site - translation by Bhikkhuni Uppalavanna - but could not find it.
If you know any urls, where to find other translations (e.g. Bhikkhu Bodhi), I should be glad to hear from you.

Here is the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn44.10 (Three bars in left corner, then 'Metadata')

Here is maybe the version you were looking for on metta.lk.
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ggo-e.html (Number 10, at the end of the page)

I checked the Pāḷi on SuttaCentral and it is both atthattā and natthattā that are used.
http://suttacentral.net/pi/sn44.10

[cobwith]

Here is the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn44.10 (Three bars in left corner, then 'Metadata')

Here is maybe the version you were looking for on metta.lk.
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ggo-e.html (Number 10, at the end of the page)

Thanks!

Interesting to see that sister Uppalavanna from metta.lk did translate Atthatta as "Soul".

Note:
Atthatta (nt.) [abstr. fr. attha] : cause.
Attha: from Vedic artha : to reach, attain or to proceed (to or from), thus originally result (or cause).