"There's no self": a sutta says

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by Circle5 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:19 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:15 am
Greetings Circle5,

Respectfully, you clearly do not know what my argument is, nor the reasons for it, so regardless of your intentions, you are simply shadowboxing.

For whatever reason (and I'm endeavouring to politely refrain from articulating what I think it might be), you're resolved on your "attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions" and these seem to inhibit your ability to comprehend what is being said to you. This is not a value judgement or a personal attack, just a concise explanation for why I am disengaging from your further questioning, and why I now respectfully request you cease pursuing your current, incessant line of off-topic questioning because it serves no functional purpose, other than to derail this topic.

Answers that accord with my reason and meaning have been provided, and as far as I'm concerned, they conclude the matter, so please get...

:focus:

Metta,
Paul. :)
You claimed you agree with the Buddha when he says that nobody can claim impermanent feelings, impermanent perceptions, etc. do not exist because we can see their arising. (do I need to quote you?)
Do you retract this statement made earlier? Do you agree with the Buddha that it's incorrect to state such things do not exist, but base your opinion on a different line of thinking than the one used by the Buddha?

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by Circle5 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:24 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:26 am
Circle5 wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:39 pm
The point Buddha is always trying to make is that there is no self anywhere, whatsoever...
You mean no real self. Obviously when "you" (the mind) gets angry or frustrated or feel humiliated, there is a "self" in the mind; albeit an imaginary self. Do you think beings murdering & exploiting another beings are free of self? :shrug:
My computer sometimes displays blue colors, white colors, etc. on the screen. My car is even more interactive and can do more things. Yet, I see no self of the car deciding the car should beep, deciding it should trigger the ESP, etc. So who is deciding all these things and taking all these actions? DOOOH a self of the car that nobody can see. There has to be a self of the car, otherwise these things would not be possible.

So I suppose your argument relies on the idea of feelings. The fact that humans are made out of 5 aggregates, one of them being feelings, makes them have a self. I suppose this is the argument you are trying to make. Yet, I see no self in feelings. I see no self apart from feelings. No self in between feelings, etc. Do you see any? Or are there just feelings alone that you see arising?

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by Circle5 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:35 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:14 am
You mean no real self. Obviously when "you" (the mind) gets angry or frustrated or feel humiliated, there is a "self" in the mind; albeit an imaginary self. Do you think beings murdering & exploiting another beings are free of self?
... draw our attention to that, just as there are different shades of "self", there are also different shades of "is". There is one founded upon ontological realism, which pertains to "existence" (i.e. "it exists") and there is another shade founded of phenomenal experience, which is well described by "is" (i.e. "it is").
So what kind of "shade of a self" is the self of a car from the example I gave in the post right above? Is it half a self, one third of a self? Or is it one third of a self that is just half of "is" and the other half "is not" ? :juggling:

These "things that are" - things like impermanent feelings, impermanent perceoptions, impermanent form, etc. - do you see a self apart from them? I think you stated before that you see no self in them. But now you seem to imply that you see a self apart from them. :anjali:

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 21414
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by retrofuturist » Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:13 am

Greetings Circle5,
Circle5 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:19 am
You claimed you agree with the Buddha when he says that nobody can claim impermanent feelings, impermanent perceptions, etc. do not exist because we can see their arising. (do I need to quote you?)
This "because" is yours and yours alone. Likewise, "do not exist" (i.e. non-existence) is not the appropriate manner in which regard dhammas either. Both polarities, existence and non-existence are rejected, and replaced by the teaching of paticcasamuppada that goes down the middle. It feels like I have said these things a good many times now, Circle5...
Circle5 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:19 am
Do you retract this statement made earlier?
I'm not retracting statements simply because you fail to comprehend them.
Circle5 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:19 am
Do you agree with the Buddha that it's incorrect to state such things do not exist, but base your opinion on a different line of thinking than the one used by the Buddha?
My logic is as per the Buddha's, in each instance misrepresented by you.
Circle5 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:19 am
So what kind of "shade of a self" is the self of a car from the example I gave in the post right above? Is it half a self, one third of a self? Or is it one third of a self that is just half of "is" and the other half "is not" ?
Irrelevant animal-talk on whether or not things exist. This has been rejected from the outset - see here. Note, as per the link, talk of vehicles is animal-talk too. :pig:
Circle5 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:19 am
These "things that are" - things like impermanent feelings, impermanent perceoptions, impermanent form, etc. - do you see a self apart from them?
No.
Circle5 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:19 am
I think you stated before that you see no self in them. But now you seem to imply that you see a self apart from them.
Once again, your false inferences, false associations and false conclusions are yours and yours alone. What do you expect me to say about things that originate in your head, and not mine?

:shrug:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by Circle5 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:42 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:13 am
This "because" is yours and yours alone. Likewise, "do not exist" (i.e. non-existence) is not the appropriate manner in which regard dhammas either. Both polarities, existence and non-existence are rejected, and replaced by the teaching of paticcasamuppada that goes down the middle. It feels like I have said these things a good many times now, Circle5...
When asked repeatedly why you believe it's wrong to say form, consciousness, feelings etc. do not exist, you answered by providing this quote:
When one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
Also, don't you find it amusing to use "is" or "are" instead of "exist" but by that, mean exactly what everybody else means by "exist"? What point does changing "things exist" into "things are" has?


Why not use the standard and accepted definition of words like non-postmodernist? Whether one says "why does such as thing as feelings exist?" or "why does such a thing as feelings are?" (which, like many postmodern changing of words, fails to make sense in English language) - whatever of these 2 wordings you chose, they mean the same thing. Whether one says "your computer exists, but the pink elephant standing next to it does not exist" or whether one says "your computer is, the pink elephant standing next to it is not" - what difference does this make? Why try to change the dictionary definition of words or try to make up your own language and way of speaking?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 21414
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by retrofuturist » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:38 pm

Greetings Circle5,
Circle5 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:42 pm
Also, don't you find it amusing to use "is" or "are" instead of "exist" but by that, mean exactly what everybody else means by "exist"? What point does changing "things exist" into "things are" has?
The Dhamma is about "appearance" (aka arising) and "disappearance" (aka falling), not "existence" and "non-existence".

"With the arising of attentiveness there is the arising of dhammas. With the cessation of attentiveness there is the cessation of dhammas" (SN 47.42).

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by Circle5 » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:10 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:38 pm
Greetings Circle5,
Circle5 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:42 pm
Also, don't you find it amusing to use "is" or "are" instead of "exist" but by that, mean exactly what everybody else means by "exist"? What point does changing "things exist" into "things are" has?
The Dhamma is about "appearance" (aka arising) and "disappearance" (aka falling), not "existence" and "non-existence".

"With the arising of attentiveness there is the arising of dhammas. With the cessation of attentiveness there is the cessation of dhammas" (SN 47.42).

Metta,
Paul. :)
The dhamma includes all discourses that Buddha has left behind, one of them being this one where the Buddha directly addreses the problem:
At Sāvatthī. “Mendicants, I don’t argue with the world; it’s the world that argues with me. When your speech is in line with the teaching you don’t argue with anyone in the world. What the astute agree on as not existing, I too say does not exist. What the astute agree on as existing, I too say exists.

And what do the astute agree on as not existing, which I too say does not exist? Form that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable. Feeling … Perception … Choices … Consciousness that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable. This is what the astute agree on as not existing, which I too say does not exist.

And what do the astute agree on as existing, which I too say exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and perishable. Feeling … Perception … Choices … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and perishable. This is what the astute agree on as existing, which I too say exists.

There is a temporal phenomenon in the world that the Realized One understands and comprehends. Then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it.

And what is that temporal phenomenon in the world? Form is a temporal phenomenon in the world that the Realized One understands and comprehends. Then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it.

This being so, what can I do about a foolish ordinary person, blind and sightless, who does not know or see? Feeling … Perception … Choices … Consciousness is a temporal phenomenon in the world that the Realized One understands and comprehends. Then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it.

This being so, what can I do about a foolish ordinary person, blind and sightless, who does not know or see?

Suppose there was a blue water lily, or a pink or white lotus. Though it sprouted and grew in the water, it would rise up above the water and stand with no water clinging to it. In the same way, though I was born and grew up in the world, I live having mastered the world, and the world does not cling to me.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.94/en/sujato

The fact that the 5 aggregates exist is taken for granted. What Buddhism is preocupied with is how these aggregates work and interact with each other, how do things work at the technical level and what conclusions are we to draw from that.

Please note that this is also a non-sensical position to have. There are feelings, perceptions, material form, etc. that we can observe - if there are such things and everybody can see their arising - this means they exist. That is the very definition of existing. That is what 99.99% of people understand by existing. The computer in front of you exists. The pink elefant standing beside it does not.

What you are trying to do is use a very different deffinition of existing, one that means something like "this computer in front of me will exist forever" or "this computer has a fundamental existence substance that will exist forever". But the 99.99% of people mentioned above do not use the word exist in this manner. They do not think that the computer that exists in front of you right now has some fundamental substance that will exist forever. Nor do they think that the pink elephant standing besides your computer has some non-existence substance or anything of that sort. In standard postmodern fashion, you are using totally different definitions of words than 99.99% of the people.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 21414
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by retrofuturist » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:20 pm

Greetings Circle5,
Circle5 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:10 pm
SN 22.94
You are literally going around in circles, Circle5. This has already been addressed from the outset.
Circle5 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:10 pm
The fact that the 5 aggregates exist is taken for granted.
By you perhaps, despite what SN 22.95 says, which is quite possibly why these discussions involve you making no headway into comprehending what is said to you. I don't ask that you agree with me, but why keep asking questions?
Circle5 wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:10 pm
The fact that the 5 aggregates exist is taken for granted. What Buddhism is preocupied with is how these aggregates work and interact with each other, how do things work at the technical level and what conclusions are we to draw from that.
There are many Buddhism(s)... and yours being as defined here by you, reaffirms my perception that your Dhamma views are rooted in naive realism, and thus, we will not have a lot to discuss, since the fundamentals of our perspectives are so different. It would also explain why you seem incapable of not misrepresenting me or what I say. Furthermore, your ongoing interest in animal-talk is not shared by me.

On that note, I bid you good day.

:hello:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 644
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:40 pm

The Things called ‘Elements ’ (Dhātu) by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu Interpreted into English by Santikaro Bhikkhu A Dhamma talk given at Suan Mokkh on 7 April 1986

Verbatim excerpts:
If we uphold a faith or a religion that believes in a God or in one God, we limit selfishness by giving up to God. Instead of being selfish, we are goddish and oriented towards God, this allows us to more and more give up selfishness.
In Buddhism, there is no belief in a personal creator God. The way that Buddhists limit and deal with the problem of selfishness is to realize, that in reality, there is no ‘self’ to be selfish about. We can do this by beginning to understand and realize that everything is just dhātu.
So the way we deal with selfishness is to realize that there is no self – to see that there are only natural elements, natural arising phenomena, that just follow the law of nature and that we must live according to this law of nature and then we can take this law of nature as our God – as an impersonal God – and more and more orient oneself towards the law of nature rather than orienting towards a ‘self.’ This way, through following and living according to by being oriented to the law of nature, the idea of belief in a ‘self’ is let go of.
Therefore, the thing we need to see is that there are only these natural dhātu and nothing else just natural dhātu, and then nowhere is there a part or portion that is a self or a soul.


Verbatim excerpts:
Now whether you understand this or not is another matter. Please try to understand it so that you don’t see it all as a bunch of nonsense. By seeing that there are only dhātu, that that’s all there is, just dhātu, then, there is within all these dhātu, there is no state or condition of soul or some permanent entity, some permanent essence. When we see this, then there is new life and there is the understanding of things as they are. This is coolness and the mind is liberated. It is saved and delivered.
You may think that this teaching is very bizarre and that it is strange and we are quite certain that Buddhism is the only religion that teaches this kind of thing. This is because all the religions which believe in a God and a soul and things associated with a soul are coming from that point of view. Everything is based on, related to, and associated with the soul. But in Buddhism, we don’t use that point of view. We come to see that there is no ‘self’ and no ‘soul,’ we uproot this idea, this concept, this way of perceiving reality, and thereby see that everything is only dhātu.

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by DooDoot » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:38 pm

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:40 pm
there is no ‘self’ to be selfish about.... So the way we deal with selfishness is to realize that there is no self... nowhere is there a part or portion that is a self or a soul.... Now whether you understand this or not is another matter. ... there is no state or condition of soul or some permanent entity, some permanent essence.... We come to see that there is no ‘self’ and no ‘soul,’ we uproot this idea, this concept, this way of perceiving reality, and thereby see that everything is only dhātu.
So what exactly is the quibble with the above? :strawman: Or do you agree with the above? :thumbsup:
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:41 am
DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:26 am
Circle5 wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:39 pm
The point Buddha is always trying to make is that there is no self anywhere, whatsoever...
You mean no real self. Obviously when "you" (the mind) gets angry or frustrated or feel humiliated, there is a "self" in the mind; albeit an imaginary self. Do you think beings murdering & exploiting another beings are free of self? :shrug:
Thank you very very much for writing these sentences.

:anjali: :anjali: :anjali:
In the Pali there are the words 'dhammarāgena' & 'dhammanandiyā', which Ajahn Buddhadasa kindly explained, per sutta, appear to mean delighting in the taste or experience of Nibbana (which can result in actual loss of true Nibbana). Similarly, delighting in the skillful sentences above does not mean these skillful sentences employing skillful means are 100% correct. For example, if a child is going to do something harmful towards themselves, it is likely more skilful to speak in terms of 'conventions' rather than teach the small child 'anatta' or 'sunnata'.

Sorry to disappoint but it is arguable the Pali suttas appear to say the Buddha taught there is no self. It seems the Buddha upgraded "anatta" ("not-self") to "sunnata" ("voidness") to make it clear there is no self anywhere in the world (SN 35.85). As for the mental formation of "self" that arises via Dependent Origination (well explained in SN 22.81), this is said to be only a mental formation ("sankhara") born from ignorant sense contact. In other places the Buddha called self a "disease" (Ud 8.1). In other places, the Buddha said the view of "self" is merely "a word", "a view", "a convention"; merely the "arising of suffering" (SN 5.10; SN 12.15).

If a mind believes it is Julius Ceasar, is this Julius Caesar real? No. It is obviously only a delusion. Similarly, it seems self is always a "delusion". Therefore, it seems self is never ever a self in any way; not even a "false self" or a "temporary self". It appears to be merely always a delusion; or "imaginary", as I previously posted. Obviously an "imaginary self" is "no self"; just like imaging you are Julius Caesar is not any type of real Julius Caesar.

Regardless, it seems your attempt to quibble with Ajahn Buddhadasa's no self (above) is the same as the dharma Ajahn Buddhadasa taught below to American university students. Even though it seems Ajahn Buddhadasa was possibly employing "skillful means" below to the novice American audience, it seems you (the Burmese) agree with the (Thai) Buddhadasa, here. :console: :twothumbsup: :hug:
Buddhadasa wrote:If students would like to remember the specific technical terms, there are three. The first term is "attā": there is attā which is attā. The second term is anattā: there is attā that is not-self, that is anattā. The third term is nirattā: without any kind of attā at all, nothingness. One extreme of attā is that it exists fully. The other extreme is no attā at all. Anattā, the self which is not self :roll: , is neither extreme, and is correct. There are three words: attā, anattā, and nirattā. They're totally different. Understand the meaning of these three words, then you'll understand everything.

The first group is the positive extreme. They believe there is attā in the full meaning of attā .This is called sassatadiţţhi, the belief in full existence or being. The second sort is the middle. There is the thing which you call "attā" but it isn't really attā, it's anattā :roll: . This is the middle or correct view. It's called sammādiţţhi. Then the negative extreme holds that there is no existence of any kind. There's no attā in any sense. This is called natthikadiţţhi. Sassatadiţţhi is full, unchanging existence; natthikadiţţhi isn't anything at all. In the middle is correct Buddhism. There exists the thing which you all call" attā." Something is there to be called "attā" or "anattā." That is, there is everything, but we don't call it or its constituent parts "attā." They are anattā. Right here is sammādiţţhi. This extreme is sassatā, which is wrong. That extreme is natthikā, which is wrong. In the middle are only the things which shouldn't be called attā, which are anattā. This is the point we must especially study and learn.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Budd ... ebirth.pdf
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 644
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:40 am

Regarding "no self," quoting ven. Buddhadasa's teachings on "no self":

Quibble?
or
Otherwise?
:thinking: :thinking: :thinking:
That is the question
... for some 'deep' thinkers
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by DooDoot » Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:13 am

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:40 am
... for some 'deep' thinkers
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:roll:
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:13 pm

AN 4.49 Vipallasa Sutta:

anattani, bhikkhave, attāti saññāvipallāso cittavipallāso diṭṭhivipallāso;

Assuming "self" where there's no self,

~ translated from the Pali by Andrew Olendzki

⬤ It is very interesting to see the absolute wordings: "no self" and "what is without self", ⬤ where some others would just replace them with conveniently manipulatable and easily digestible "not-self".
The Pali translates as "not-self" rather than "no-self". Anatta = not-self.

For example, in SN 22.59, the Buddha taught:

* Form is not-self - rūpaṃ anattā
* Feeling is not-self - vedanā anattā
* Perception is not-self - saññā anattā
* Mental formations are not-self - saṅkhārā anattā
* Consciousness is not-self - viññāṇaṃ anattā.

I would sound strange if it was:

* Form is no-self
* Feeling is no-self
* Perception is no-self
* Mental formations are no-self
* Consciousness is no-self
⬤ The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
No-self (anatta :roll: ) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate.
Attachments
sda sig.png
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Crazy cloud, Lankamed, lostitude, Sam Vara and 123 guests