Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by Bundokji »

SarathW wrote:Hi B
The question here is whether Buddha gave a categorical answer to the idea of eternal self. ( Brahaminical idea as per Upanishads)
I understand SarathW :smile: and I have read the different interesting answers you and other discussants have provided so far.

However, I noticed that the question assumes that those who read it understand what the word "self" exactly means, and where it came from! If I may talk about myself, I am not quite sure how the idea of a self came into being, and as long as we don't fully understand the question, any answers we might give about whether the Buddha denied or confirmed the existence of a "self" will be a mere speculation.

I am sorry if my contribution is seen as not related to the topic, this was not my intention.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by Mr Man »

SarathW wrote:Hi B
The question here is whether Buddha gave a categorical answer to the idea of eternal self. ( Brahaminical idea as per Upanishads)
Not in the OP it isn't.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

Yes:

Read here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by Dhammanando »

Ron-The-Elder wrote:Yes:

Read here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html
But the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta is not really probative in this matter. Indeed followers of the Frauwallner/Thanissaro “strategic” interpretation, or of the various Vedantic or neo-Puggalavādin intepretations, are in the habit of citing this very same sutta in support of their heterodox views.

Better is the Alaggadūpama Sutta (MN. 22) and the passages cited above by Tilt.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by ihrjordan »

If the Buddha categorically denied the existence of a self and as we know, that which is not-self is impermanent and stressful, why would an untrained run-of-the mill person have any interest in practicing or doing good deeds? If pleasent feelings are as stressful as unpleasent why even put forth effort? The Buddha did not categorically deny a self because if he did than some would be susceptible to views of determinism and even when he did address the question of self directly, it was only to those well along on the path for whom such a perception of "everything is alien and stressful" would be useful. But in terms of him categorically stating "there is no self" this simply isn't the case, if anything he gave an analytical answer to those who were ready for such a teaching. Saying that he sees no view of self which would not cause stress and suffering for one who clung to it.
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by ihrjordan »

From what I gather is that "categorical" means true across the board. The Buddha never would nor did ever say to one who was new to the path that "there is no self" or "the five aggregates when clung to will cause suffering" why? Because it would be improper and harmful to answer this question in such a way to a newcomer and hence is not catergorical, but either analytical or left aside.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

cat·e·gor·i·cal
[kat-i-gawr-i-kuhl, -gor-]
ADJECTIVE
1.
without exceptions or conditions; absolute; unqualified and unconditional: a categorical denial.
2.
of, relating to, or in a category.
The suttas cited categorically deny that there is any self which can be identified, that there is any essence of self.

Buddha's teachings regarding "emptiness" make that clear as well:
"There are these five clinging-aggregates where a monk should stay, keeping track of arising & passing away (thus): 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' As he stays keeping track of arising & passing away with regard to these five clinging-aggregates, he abandons any conceit that 'I am' with regard to these five clinging-aggregates. This being the case, he discerns, 'I have abandoned any conceit that "I am" with regard to these five clinging-aggregates.' In this way he is alert there.

"These qualities, Ananda, are exclusively skillful in their grounding, noble, transcendent, inaccessible to the Evil One.
source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by SarathW »

Hi Ihr

You have to familiarise yourself what eternal self mean in Upanishads.
This is somewhat similar to eternal heaven in Christianity.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by ihrjordan »

I understand what eternal is refering to. I'm saying that the Buddha never categorically denied the existence of a self. Does this mean that he said there was a chance for there to be a self? I don't think he did, but nonetheless Rontheelder, you make my point, he only taught non-self to those well advanced on the path, you woun't find him giving this teaching to one who wasn't ready because it can be easily misconstrued; the Buddha said things and didn't say things the way he did for a reason, but fortunately or unfortunately we are overloaded with information and may end up reading teachings directed to Anagami's rather than where we stand on the path...
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by ihrjordan »

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
cat·e·gor·i·cal
[kat-i-gawr-i-kuhl, -gor-]
ADJECTIVE
1.
without exceptions or conditions; absolute; unqualified and unconditional: a categorical denial.
2.
of, relating to, or in a category.
The suttas cited categorically deny that there is any self which can be identified, that there is any essence of self.

Buddha's teachings regarding "emptiness" make that clear as well:
"There are these five clinging-aggregates where a monk should stay, keeping track of arising & passing away (thus): 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' As he stays keeping track of arising & passing away with regard to these five clinging-aggregates, he abandons any conceit that 'I am' with regard to these five clinging-aggregates. This being the case, he discerns, 'I have abandoned any conceit that "I am" with regard to these five clinging-aggregates.' In this way he is alert there.

"These qualities, Ananda, are exclusively skillful in their grounding, noble, transcendent, inaccessible to the Evil One.
source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes but can you show me where in the canon that the Buddha either gives a non-self teaching to a newcomer or says that "there is no self"? Your quote shows nothing rather than those advanced on the path should apply that perception to eradicate the remainder of clinging...
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by ihrjordan »

Ron-The-Elder wrote:

The suttas cited categorically deny that there is any self which can be identified, that there is any essence of self.
This is a loaded statement. Yes I know that the Buddha said he doesn't see a view of self which wouldn't cause suffering when clung to but he certainly wouldn't teach such a thing to newbie or say "there is no self" hence not categorical
Last edited by ihrjordan on Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by SarathW »

ihrjordan wrote:I understand what eternal is refering to. I'm saying that the Buddha never categorically denied the existence of a self. Does this mean that he said there was a chance for there to be a self? I don't think he did, but nonetheless Rontheelder, you make my point, he only taught non-self to those well advanced on the path, you woun't find him giving this teaching to one who wasn't ready because it can be easily misconstrued; the Buddha said things and didn't say things the way he did for a reason, but fortunately or unfortunately we are overloaded with information and may end up reading teachings directed to Anagami's rather than where we stand on the path...
The following link may some help.

Is self view, a self fulfilling prophecy?

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... FULFILLING" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by ihrjordan »

SarathW wrote:
ihrjordan wrote:I understand what eternal is refering to. I'm saying that the Buddha never categorically denied the existence of a self. Does this mean that he said there was a chance for there to be a self? I don't think he did, but nonetheless Rontheelder, you make my point, he only taught non-self to those well advanced on the path, you woun't find him giving this teaching to one who wasn't ready because it can be easily misconstrued; the Buddha said things and didn't say things the way he did for a reason, but fortunately or unfortunately we are overloaded with information and may end up reading teachings directed to Anagami's rather than where we stand on the path...
The following link may some help.

Is self view, a self fulfilling prophecy?

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... FULFILLING" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Again the Buddha said things he did and left things out for a reason, is it a coincidence that the the view "there is no self" is looked on as view that causes entanglement?
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

ihrjordan: "Yes but can you show me where in the canon that the Buddha either gives a non-self teaching to a newcomer or says that "there is no self"? Your quote shows nothing rather than those advanced on the path should apply that perception to eradicate the remainder of clinging..."
My suspicion is that English is not your first language. The definition of "categorical" does not in any way pertain to a follower being a novice. Buddha did categorically deny the existence of any permanent self. He covered this denial in his teachings regarding emptiness, in his teachings regarding impermanence, in his teachings regarding dependent origination:
The perceiving of impermanence, bhikkhus, developed and frequently practiced, removes all sensual passion, removes all passion for material existence, removes all passion for becoming, removes all ignorance, removes and abolishes all conceit of "I am."

Just as in the autumn a farmer, plowing with a large plow, cuts through all the spreading rootlets as he plows; in the same way, bhikkhus, the perceiving of impermanence, developed and frequently practiced, removes all sensual passion... removes and abolishes all conceit of "I am."

— SN 22.102
The Enlightened One explains:

The five aggregates, monks, are anicca, impermanent; whatever is impermanent, that is dukkha, unsatisfactory; whatever is dukkha, that is without attaa, self. What is without self, that is not mine, that I am not, that is not my self. Thus should it be seen by perfect wisdom (sammappa~n~naaya) as it really is. Who sees by perfect wisdom, as it really is, his mind, not grasping, is detached from taints; he is liberated.

— SN 22.45
Whatever material form there be: whether past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; low or lofty; far or near; that material form the monk sees, meditates upon, examines with systematic attention, he thus seeing, meditating upon, and examining with systematic attention, would find it empty, he would find it insubstantial and without essence. What essence, monks, could there be in material form?

The Buddha speaks in the same manner of the remaining aggregates and asks:

What essence, monks, could there be in feeling, in perception, in mental formations and in consciousness?

— SN 22.95
He continues: "You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you." Nevertheless one who understands the root of the Dhamma would go a step further and say: The same man cannot step twice into the same river; for the so called man who is only a conflux of mind and body, never remains the same for two consecutive moments."[3]

It should now be clear that the being whom for all practical purposes we call a man, woman, or individual, is not something static, but kinetic, being in a state of constant and continuous change. Now when a person views life and all that pertains to life in this light, and understands analytically this so-called being as a mere succession of mental and the bodily aggregates, he sees things as they really are (yathaabhuutam). He does not hold the wrong view of "personality belief," belief in a soul or self (sakkaaya di.t.thi), because he knows through right understanding that all phenomenal existence is causally dependent (pa.ticca-samuppanna), that each is conditioned by something else, and that its existence is relative to that condition. He knows that as a result there is no "I," no persisting psychic entity, no ego principle, no self or anything pertaining to a self in this life process. He is, therefore, free from the notion of a microcosmic soul (jiivaatma) or a macrocosmic soul (paramaatma).
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Pasada
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 3:20 am

Re: Did Buddha categorically denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self?

Post by Pasada »

Ron-The-Elder wrote:My suspicion is that English is not your first language. The definition of "categorical" does not in any way pertain to a follower being a novice. Buddha did categorically deny the existence of any permanent self.
In AN 4.42, the Buddha is very clear that there are four ways of answering a question - categorically, analytically, with a counter question, or questions that should be put aside.

When asked outright if there is a self or no self, the Buddha refused to answer. Thus, this is not a categorical denial. It is instead a question that should be put aside.

As an example of categorical statements made by the Buddha, we can look at AN 2.18, the Ekasema Sutta, which Thanissaro translates as "Categorical".

Likewise, in the Potthapada Sutta (DN. 9), the Buddha states his "categorical teaching" comprise the Four Noble Truths.

Note that the first set of categorical statements concern action, and the second set the frame of reference for experience and action. Neither of them concern the existence or non-existence of a self.

Likewise, the Buddha identifies the view I have no self as a case of inappropriate attention, just as much as the view I have a self - see MN2:
As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he doesn't attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends (instead) to ideas fit for attention...

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at habits & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing."
So in conclusion I think we can say that the Buddha does not categorically deny the existence of the self. What he denies is the usefulness of the concept of self and no-self as a frame of reference for our experience. Experience should be approached from the framework of the Four Noble Truths, and within that framework we employ the perception of phenomena as not-self as a useful strategy for putting an end to suffering.

This is not the same thing as advancing a metaphysical position about the self. Even if our position is that the self does not exist, this is just one of the six kinds of view.
Post Reply