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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
whynotme
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

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

Post by whynotme » Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:25 am

tiltbillings wrote:
whynotme wrote:
I think if the Buddha want to discredit the self concept, he can say, not those ascetics and brahmins, but anyone or everyone who regards self... but he never did that.
Huh?
What is your point?

Did you meant the buddha said everyone who regards self?
Please stop following me

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23045
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

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

Post by tiltbillings » Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:31 am

whynotme wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
whynotme wrote:
I think if the Buddha want to discredit the self concept, he can say, not those ascetics and brahmins, but anyone or everyone who regards self... but he never did that.
Huh?
What is your point?

Did you meant the buddha said everyone who regards self?
What do you think? We non-shramanas and non-Brahmins are different some how from the Brahmins and shramanas?
>> 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
cooran
Posts: 8504
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

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

Post by cooran » Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:34 am

This article by Ven. K.Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera is interesting:

Is there an Eternal Soul?
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/115.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1888
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 » Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:19 am

whynotme wrote: "It is very clear that the Buddha did not want to dig into this matter, there must be a reason for that, and why does everyone want to dig into it? Why don't choose an easier method? Suttas and collections can be wrong because of history, words meaning may be lost, don't be attached to them."
Buddha refused to discuss the topic of self / not self only with those who he discerned could not understand, could be confused, frightened, or misled. He covered the topic thoroughly in his teachings regarding :

emptiness 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;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

impermanence source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el202.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

anatta source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el202.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dependent origination 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;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not only is the topic covered thoroughly, but in most cases when teaching those he felt capable of understanding, his denial of any permanent self was taught categorically. How anyone can deny this is beyond me, :shrug: ....unless they have never studied these topics in the suttas.

To get to your point as to why people feel the need to constantly dig-into this topic, IMHO it is about attachment to a delusional self, separation from which induces irresistible fear. This fear is often, if not always, associated with death. Personally, the only sure cure for this I have found is charnel ground meditation:

sources for further study: 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;

Bag of Bones http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Whe ... 71_272.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buddhist Meditation and Depth Psychology: http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh_088.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" 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.

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

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

Post by lyndon taylor » Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:57 pm

Dhammanando wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:OK then can you give me an example of a Dhamma that is false???
You have done no more than re-phrase your earlier question. If you're too lazy to define your terms, then obviously there's no way for me to ascertain whether what you're asking of me is possible. The question you've asked me is a paṭipucchābyākaraṇīya pañha — a question that requires a counter-question as its answer. My counter-questions are:

1. What do you mean by "true"?

2. What would it mean to you if sabbe dhammā anattā were to be translated as "All truths are not self"?
I'd have to review the context, But I would say "ALL Dhammas have no self" would be a comment on the nature of Dhammas, Dhammas do not have souls, they do not have self, because they do are not beings and have no identity.
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
Mr Empty
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:27 pm

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

Post by Mr Empty » Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:48 pm

Is it not the case that individuality is not denied but inherent existence is? There is no inherent existence. Everything is dependantly originated. That pretty much means the sense of self is dependantly originated?

User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 977
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

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

Post by Pondera » Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:24 pm

Mr Empty wrote:Is it not the case that individuality is not denied but inherent existence is? There is no inherent existence. Everything is dependantly originated. That pretty much means the sense of self is dependantly originated?
I think Nagarjuna was the first to present the "no inherent existence" theory. It's post canonical and, if I recall, Nagarjuna was a proponent of the Madhyamika School of thought. (Which is Mahayna). Point being - "inherent emptiness of conditioned things" is a later development of Mahayana schools. Tho I could be wrong. Wait. I usually am. :) To be safe, let's just say I'm wrong. :tongue:
What is “rupa” Jhāna? Here are four simple meditations on earth, water, fire, and wind - leading to tranquility and pleasure, rapture and equanimity - peacehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1sdgpi ... hIz3wgz7ep

User avatar
lionking
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:28 pm

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

Post by lionking » Tue Nov 17, 2015 12:03 am

Well, this question relates to the book "Island" that is referred here. In particular the paragraph on page 96. The paragraph is as follows.
One of the first stumbling blocks in understanding Buddhism is the teaching on anattæ, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn’t fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of karma and rebirth: If there’s no self, what experiences the results of karma and takes rebirth?
Its a natural observation. After all when someone pinches the skin you get hurt. Then you assume the skin must belong to you. You then assume the self is reborn.
I think that matter must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.
- Albert Einstein
Our skin is not different to the moon Albert Einstein refers to here. They are both matter. At Quantum level the moon, the skin, indeed all matter has a separate reality.

The moon as well as ones own skin only comes into being when observed. Einstein goes onto say its very "spooky".

The view of "self" is quite intriguing at Quantum level. For example the pinch event is constructed by 3 out of the 6 consciousness.

- When the eye-consciousness begins to observe - the skin texture, shape and colour comes into being.
- When the body-consciousness begins to observe - it mimics a touch feeling.
- When the mind-consciousness begins to observe - it mimics a self context connecting the external event to the skin.

Thus the Wiññāṇa takes a light wave pattern and constructs a false view of self. The view of self simply does not exist when the 6-consciousness are not active.

So matter of self is not reborn. The consciousness that pre-existed simply transfers to a new state.

The book interprets Buddha's words incorrectly. These are positions most Buddhists take very early in their Buddhist lives. Although after a few Eureka moments the gist of the meaning of what Buddha said becomes clear.
The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn’t have inferences drawn from them, and those who don’t draw inferences from those that should. These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha’s teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anattæ doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored.
With Metta
grr ..

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 » Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:34 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Pasada wrote:But my understanding is that the teachings of the Buddha are phenomenological, rather than ontological. They ask to engage with our experience and to attend to the ways in which we are fashioning that experience from moment to moment. The primary frame of reference of seems to be based on action (and the development of skillful action), rather than a doctrine on the nature of being (ontology).
And in the phenomenological experience, great googaly moogaly, no self is found: All dhammas are empty of self, without self, selfless. Also keep in mind that "dhamma" here phenomenological in characteristic/functioning.
I agree with this. Also, "great googaly moogaly" is an excellent turn of phrase, and one that should be used more frequently.

I would still maintain, however, that the doctrine of anatta is not a metaphysical or ontological position, but a skillful means to free the heart and purify the mind. Earlier some posters balked at the idea that anatta is "merely" a strategic perception, but all of the Path is ultimately strategic, in the sense that it is a means to an end, namely, the ending of suffering. It is not about metaphysical absolutes, questions of being and non-being, etc.

The Buddha does not make a categorical statement that there is no self - we can speculate about why this is, but I suspect if he meant it to be a categorical teaching, he would have made it a categorical statement, as he did with other teachings.

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3181
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

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

Post by robertk » Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:09 am

Majjhima Nikaaya I. 4. 5 Cuulasaccakasutta.m- (35 ) The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka.
.Saccaka the son of Nigan.tha then said thus to the Blessed One. We would ask a certain question from good Gotama. If good Gotama would give us leave and would explain it to us. The Blessed One said, ask Aggivessana what you desire.How does good Gotama advise the disciples and in what sections are they given much training? Aggivessana, I advise and train my disciple much in this manner.... ", ...All things are not self. "
....

[Aggivessana disagreed]

..A
ggivessana, you that say, matter is your self, do you wield power over that matter, as may my matter be thus, and not otherwise? .No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you that say, feelings are your self, do you wield power over those feelings, as may my feelings be thus, and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. .Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you that say, perceptions are your self, do you wield power over those perceptions, as may my perceptions be thus and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier, does not agree with what you say now.. Aggivessana, you, that say, determinations are your self, do you wield power over those determinations, as may my determinations be thus and not otherwise. No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you, that say, consciousness is your self, do you wield power over that consciousness, as may my consciousness be thus and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now.
..

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3181
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

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

Post by robertk » Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:10 am

"There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena alone flow on, no other view than this right."
Visuddhimagga XIX19


"This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person"
XVIII24


"The mental and material (nama rupa) are really here
But here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely fashioned like a doll"

User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 884
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

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

Post by dhammacoustic » Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:36 am

robertk wrote:"There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result...
Visuddhimagga XIX19
:thinking:

AN 6.38, Attakārī Sutta wrote:“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”

“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer.

“What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion... is there an element of effort... is there an element of steadfastness... is there an element of persistence... is there an element of endeavoring?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3181
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

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

Post by robertk » Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:38 am

dhammacoustic wrote:
robertk wrote:"There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result...
Visuddhimagga XIX19
:thinking:

AN 6.38, Attakārī Sutta wrote:“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”

“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”

“J’?”
And I think the Commentary to the sutta explains that the Brahmin was a follower of makkali gosala. he was a famous wrong viewer of the time who held that there was no such thing as kamma: one could live a good life or live a life where one went about killing and raping to the greatest extent, it didn't matter too much, as at death all would have the same fate, back to the mud, dust.

In this sutta the Buddha was trying to help the Brahmin see that there is truly the result of action. It was not a sutta that had the goal of explaining anatta.

User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 884
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

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

Post by dhammacoustic » Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:10 am

robertk wrote:In this sutta the Buddha was trying to help the Brahmin see that there is truly the result of action. It was not a sutta that had the goal of explaining anatta.
I know, but is this still a correct statement? "There is no doer of a deed, or one who collects the result"

A monk attains nibbāna in the here and now, due to his own effort, and not someone else's. So, there is clearly a self-doer, as the Buddha states in the sutta.

:anjali:

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23045
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

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

Post by tiltbillings » Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:01 am

dhammacoustic wrote:
robertk wrote:In this sutta the Buddha was trying to help the Brahmin see that there is truly the result of action. It was not a sutta that had the goal of explaining anatta.
I know, but is this still a correct statement? "There is no doer of a deed, or one who collects the result"

A monk attains nibbāna in the here and now, due to his own effort, and not someone else's. So, there is clearly a self-doer, as the Buddha states in the sutta.

:anjali:
And the nature of this "self-doer" is?
>> 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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 110 guests