Not-self or No-self?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: Not-self or No-self?

Post by Shonin » Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:07 pm

beeblebrox wrote: In Pali it is: sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā; sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā; and sabbe dhammā anattā. I think these three got conflated. The first two, it's just "fabrications", and the latter, it's just "dhammas."
OK thanks. I'm not familiar with the exact meaning of 'fabrications' - is that different from 'conditioned dhammas' ?

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Not-self or No-self?

Post by beeblebrox » Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:43 pm

Shonin wrote:OK thanks. I'm not familiar with the exact meaning of 'fabrications' - is that different from 'conditioned dhammas' ?
I think they're probably more or less the same. Ven. Ñāṇananda calls it "preparation," at least in the book I'm reading right now. I've seen some call it "determination," (though in a different sense than is used here) and some call it "formation." I've read that Bhikkhu Bodhi wanted to translate it as "construction," but he thought that it might be awkward. I think the Wikipedia definition is probably the clearest, "that which has been put together," (fabrication) and, "that which puts together" (determination).

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6630
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Not-self or No-self?

Post by Cittasanto » Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:51 pm

Sankhara is translated as conditioned and fabrication but I don't believe that dhamma/Dhamma is ever called a fabrication... itself.

the correct formulas are
all conditions are imperminent - sabbe sankhaaraa aniccaa
all dhammas are not-self - sabbe dhammaa anattaa
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Not-self or No-self?

Post by PeterB » Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:20 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
Shonin wrote:OK thanks. I'm not familiar with the exact meaning of 'fabrications' - is that different from 'conditioned dhammas' ?
I think they're probably more or less the same. Ven. Ñāṇananda calls it "preparation," at least in the book I'm reading right now. I've seen some call it "determination," (though in a different sense than is used here) and some call it "formation." I've read that Bhikkhu Bodhi wanted to translate it as "construction," but he thought that it might be awkward. I think the Wikipedia definition is probably the clearest, "that which has been put together," (fabrication) and, "that which puts together" (determination).
Both have advantages and disadvantages...or so it seems to me. It may be as is often the case that the full meaning is lost if we plump for a word for word translation. Its aesthetically more pleasing to have an English word representing a Pali one, but nuances are thereby lost.

chandrafabian
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:26 am

Re: Not-self or No-self?

Post by chandrafabian » Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:41 am

Dear friends,

Let's consider this, we know five aggregates are merely process nothing more.
Now the question is whether we can say five aggregates as self or not, in conventional way...?

The fact remain, our five aggregates exist, in conventional reality we can say self exist, because five aggregates is self in conventional reality. So the notion five aggregates as not self is like denying reality to me (I mean in conventional reality). According to scriptures five aggregates exist, but it has no individual essence or permanent entity, because they are merely process. I exist in conventional reality.

In my understanding Individual essence/permanent entity or atman is translated as soul.
But even in conventional reality or absolute reality, soul does not exist, never exist,
therefore no-soul anywhere in the universe. Or at least we would never be able to prove soul exist.

So it depends on the context, sometimes no-soul is more precise in translating anatta.
In other context not-self or no-self is more precise.
(just another opinion) but the choice is yours.

Mettacittena,
fabian

User avatar
Goedert
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: Not-self or No-self?

Post by Goedert » Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:40 am

chandrafabian wrote:Dear friends,

I don't know if this topic has or has not been brought about,
I read the statement of Ven. Thanissaro is somewhat misleading.
He said the view "have self" or "have no-self" are equally wrong.
I think he took different approach in translating "atta" as self only.
He is not taking into accounts the concept of atta as individual-entity/individual-essence soul.
Therefore atta can be translated as self or soul.
So Anatta in many scriptures most often means not-self and/or no-soul.

Please share your opinion.....

:anjali:
Don't you think there is sentience life? It is conditioned to impermanence, but it arise when the necessary conditions are fullfilled.

With the term no=self, some people with out the knowledge of abhidhamma, may create a concept of nihilism.

The cittas, cetasikas and cetanas are like stream lines, working volition. Volition can create a wrong concept of self, or wrong concept of no-self.

Volition also can be directed to achive nibbana, Stream-win.

It is really difficult to we have the right answer. We only can say "I believe in this, I believe in that..." but none of us here have the realesation of direct nibbana. Only a Wisdon Buddha would know it.

There is a great bliss in when we rest in the first stages of sammasamadhi. But nibbana is out of words, how can we conceptualize the very true 'thing' that expirience nibbana? We can only speculate.

chandrafabian
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:26 am

Re: Not-self or No-self?

Post by chandrafabian » Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:04 am

Dear friends,
Let us translate the meaning of AN in an-atta, what is the best translation?
no-atta or not-atta ?
Actually The Buddha said in one of the Sutta, Dhamma is deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness. Emptiness is direct experience of anatta.
So anatta experience is not connected with sensse of belonging, but anatta experience is connected with the stopping of phenomena. But The Buddha also say it is not me, it is not mine, in that sense not-atta also correct.

Mettacittena,
fabian.

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: Not-self or No-self?

Post by 5heaps » Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:29 am

chandrafabian wrote:So the notion five aggregates as not self is like denying reality to me (I mean in conventional reality). According to scriptures five aggregates exist, but it has no individual essence or permanent entity, because they are merely process. I exist in conventional reality.
on the other hand sometimes you want people to be shocked by the negation, particularly if you set it up properly beforehand. because its not as though our cognitions of ourselves are correct at this very moment. that self it doesnt exist at all
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: allergies, binocular, Bundokji, inyenzi, justindesilva, khemindas, sakyan and 160 guests