NO self

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: NO self

Post by whynotme »

SamKR wrote:
whynotme wrote:
It is not logical to say there is no self based on examination. E.g I looked for my cell phone, I looked in the bedroom, the bathroom, kitchen.. I looked for it in all of my rooms and I didn't find it, then I came to a conclusion my cell phone doesn't exist, it is illogical. It is right to just say, there is no cell phone in bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, but it is wrong to say there is no cell phone (at all).
"Cell phone" is just a concept referring to an aggregate of various parts which are in turn aggregates, and so on.
Similar to "chariot" mentioned in Milindapanha. http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Anatta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks, I knew it, I read Milindapanha, it is quite good

@ tiltbillings, thanks, I agreed with most of your post. But here is what I understood:

To say correctly, we can say that there is an unconditioned thing, because it is a fact (which already stated by the Buddha). So we can say correctly, there is self, both has the same meaning. They have nothing wrong with them. But to state there is no self, is totally wrong, which is why it is not found anywhere on the suttas.

The problem with there is self, is not it is wrong, but as you already pointed out, it is very hard to correctly understand and practice. If we say there is self, or there is an unconditioned thing, only very few understand them correctly, e.g at least sotapanna. Other may hold on a view with the self relates to five aggregates.

Yes, I am still inclined to existence and non existence, it is not much a problem for me because I am not a saint yet, even lower level saints are still inclined to existence and non existence. But for the sake of the discussion or for the sake of a statement, pretend that I am an arahant, then I can say there is self, like I can say there is unconditioned thing, perfectly. Meanwhile the statement, there is no self, is wrong, no matter who said it. And is a much more serious problem then mine.

Even when you stated there is no self with an implicit meaning, in five aggregates, then the danger of misunderstanding is very high, similar to the case of misunderstanding there is self and think it is a self in five aggregate. That why the Buddha had never stated that there is no self, and keep silent on the matter of an arahant after death, and keep silent when was being asked directly to it.

If you can say there is no self then we could easily say, after death, nothing is left for an arahant, quite frankly? So, we should not state that there is no self, shouln'd we? OK, from now I will use an arahant does not exist after death to counter the view there is no self. No need to use the complicated self.

Regards
Please stop following me
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: NO self

Post by tiltbillings »

whynotme wrote:
To say correctly, we can say that there is an unconditioned thing, because it is a fact (which already stated by the Buddha).
No, there is not. And no, he did not.
>> 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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: NO self

Post by tiltbillings »

whynotme wrote:
The problem with there is self, is not it is wrong, but as you already pointed out, it is very hard to correctly understand and practice. If we say there is self, or there is an unconditioned thing, only very few understand them correctly, e.g at least sotapanna. Other may hold on a view with the self relates to five aggregates.
The Buddha was quite clear. Any sense of self we might have -- and we do have a profound sense of self -- it is grounded in the khandhas. You might also want to look at
  • "You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "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." MN 22.
Even when you stated there is no self with an implicit meaning, in five aggregates, then the danger of misunderstanding is very high,
Not if one understands paticcasamupadda.
That why the Buddha had never stated that there is no self, and keep silent on the matter of an arahant after death, and keep silent when was being asked directly to it.
You might do well to look at the actual texts where the Buddha kept silent in response to the question of the existence of a self. Context is everything.
If you can say there is no self then we could easily say, after death, nothing is left for an arahant, quite frankly? So, we should not state that there is no self, shouln'd we?
Again, your questions are grounded in the assumptions of being and non-being, a way of looking at thigs the Buddha rejected.
OK, from now I will use an arahant does not exist after death to counter the view there is no self. No need to use the complicated self.
If I am understanding you correctly, you would be wrong to say that "an arahant does not exist after death."

These two suttas would warrant careful study and consideration:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> 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
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: NO self

Post by whynotme »

tiltbillings wrote:
whynotme wrote:
To say correctly, we can say that there is an unconditioned thing, because it is a fact (which already stated by the Buddha).
No, there is not. And no, he did not.
I can quote it in my language, but I am not familiar with English source. It is in khuddaka sutta, did you read all the suttas?
Please stop following me
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: NO self

Post by whynotme »

tiltbillings wrote:
whynotme wrote:
The problem with there is self, is not it is wrong, but as you already pointed out, it is very hard to correctly understand and practice. If we say there is self, or there is an unconditioned thing, only very few understand them correctly, e.g at least sotapanna. Other may hold on a view with the self relates to five aggregates.
The Buddha was quite clear. Any sense of self we might have -- and we do have a profound sense of self -- it is grounded in the khandhas. You might also want to look at
  • "You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "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." MN 22.
So, at first I thought you agree with me that the Buddha already stated there is unconditioned, uncreated thing. If you don't agree with it then we must restart from that point. I will try to disentangle the misunderstanding.

OK, I agree that we should not build self theory, especially there is no self theory. There is self and there is no self, are wrong views. Can we agree on this point?
That why the Buddha had never stated that there is no self, and keep silent on the matter of an arahant after death, and keep silent when was being asked directly to it.
You might do well to look at the actual texts where the Buddha kept silent in response to the question of the existence of a self. Context is everything.
I agree that to understand some suttas, we need context. But we must use it carefully, or we will manipulate the Buddha's words to fit our own theory. Can I hear your explanation on that occasion's context? What is the reason the Buddha kept silent?

And no matter what the context, the Buddha had never stated that there is no self, do you agree with this?
If you can say there is no self then we could easily say, after death, nothing is left for an arahant, quite frankly? So, we should not state that there is no self, shouln'd we?
Again, your questions are grounded in the assumptions of being and non-being, a way of looking at thigs the Buddha rejected.
OK, from now I will use an arahant does not exist after death to counter the view there is no self. No need to use the complicated self.
If I am understanding you correctly, you would be wrong to say that "an arahant does not exist after death."

These two suttas would warrant careful study and consideration:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
OK, I saw your point.

Let me ask you, does dhammawheel forum exist?

Regards
Please stop following me
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: NO self

Post by Polar Bear »

When one sees the origination of dhamma wheel forum as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to dhamma wheel forum does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of dhamma wheel forum as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to dhamma wheel forum does not occur to one.

:namaste:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: NO self

Post by tiltbillings »

whynotme wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
whynotme wrote:
The problem with there is self, is not it is wrong, but as you already pointed out, it is very hard to correctly understand and practice. If we say there is self, or there is an unconditioned thing, only very few understand them correctly, e.g at least sotapanna. Other may hold on a view with the self relates to five aggregates.
The Buddha was quite clear. Any sense of self we might have -- and we do have a profound sense of self -- it is grounded in the khandhas. You might also want to look at
  • "You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "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." MN 22.
So, at first I thought you agree with me that the Buddha already stated there is unconditioned, uncreated thing. If you don't agree with it then we must restart from that point. I will try to disentangle the misunderstanding.
I have no misunderstanding. This has already been addressed here at great length: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10569" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If you wish to pursue this question, best do it in that thread, not in this thread.
Let me ask you, does dhammawheel forum exist?
It has no inherent existence.
>> 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
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: NO self

Post by whynotme »

polarbuddha101 wrote:When one sees the origination of dhamma wheel forum as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to dhamma wheel forum does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of dhamma wheel forum as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to dhamma wheel forum does not occur to one.

:namaste:
So, is there dhamma wheel forum?

And if you don't mind, does suffering exist?

Regards
Please stop following me
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: NO self

Post by whynotme »

tiltbillings wrote:I have no misunderstanding. This has already been addressed here at great length: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10569" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; If you wish to pursue this question, best do it in that thread, not in this thread.
Thanks for the link, I am investigating it

Regards
Please stop following me
zazang
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 9:21 am

Re: NO self

Post by zazang »

no-self has to be directly experienced in all aggregates in the light of Dependent origination which means
that things arise *impersonally and conditionally*...the aggregates which make up a conventional self
are as impersonal as the wave in a sea or a rock.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: NO self

Post by tiltbillings »

zazang wrote:no-self has to be directly experienced in all aggregates in the light of Dependent origination which means
that things arise *impersonally and conditionally*...the aggregates which make up a conventional self
are as impersonal as the wave in a sea or a rock.
Even so, you still might say: "My back hurts; I think I will sit down for awhile."
>> 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
Way~Farer
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: NO self

Post by Way~Farer »

To say that 'nothing is self' is not to say 'there is no self'.


From the Ananda Sutta:
[T]he wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "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.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests and contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests and contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness].
(Ananda Sutta, SN 44.10; trs Thanissaro, Access to Insight.)

The gist is that atta is neither something that can be described as ‘existing’, or as ‘non-existing’ - in other words, to hold either view is to err. It is significant that in this passage, the question ‘then is there no self?’ is expressed as follows: “Kiṃ pana, bho gotama, natthattā”ti? Here, natthattā is the noun form and is one of the only occurrences of this form in the Pali texts. Virtually every other instances of the term is given adjectively, as anattā, and nearly always in relation to ‘those things which are not the self’. In other words, on the one occasion when the Buddha was directly asked ‘whether or not there is atta’, he did not respond either negatively or positively. This is a significant point in understanding the meaning of ‘the Middle Way’.

The idea of 'an eternal self' that is criticized as 'eternalism' is as follows:
The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, set firmly as a post. And though these beings rush around, circulate, pass away and re-arise, but this remains eternally. (DN1.1.32)
But this does not mean that 'there is no self', for that would imply that there can be no fruition of kamma, and would be the opposite error of nihilism.
MidGe
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 6:15 am

Re: NO self

Post by MidGe »

No analogy is perfect but the idea of the wave as a metaphor for self seems to resonates! :)

In a wave the water particles are not moving forward with the wave, they do a little circle in place and that is it. Does a wave exists? It might, just like a self, but no more. :)

http://www.teachersdomain.org/asset/lsps07_int_waves/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: NO self

Post by Polar Bear »

whynotme wrote:
polarbuddha101 wrote:When one sees the origination of dhamma wheel forum as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to dhamma wheel forum does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of dhamma wheel forum as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to dhamma wheel forum does not occur to one.

:namaste:
So, is there dhamma wheel forum?

And if you don't mind, does suffering exist?

Regards
as long as you don't interpret it too literally then yes. there is not some thing though called forum, there are electrical pulses beaming into a computer, the computer interprets the electrical impulses in a particular way and an image flashes on your screen. If you went looking for DHAMMAWHEEL you wouldn't find it, it's not anywhere in particular. It's a mirage

does suffering exist. As an abstraction yes, as an idea yes. remember that suffering only exists in relation to a first person ontology, it's totally subjective, rocks don't suffer, people do. More to the point, suffering is an abstract concept that refers to the way people sometimes have feelings they deem unpleasant and through wrong comprehension become averse to those feelings. Suffering does not exist apart from the way people relate to feelings of pain, pleasure and neither pleasure nor pain.

So in one sense, dhammawheel forum and suffering both exist, but the way to see both of these things is to avoid extremes of existence and non-existence. It's hard to wrap your mind around conceptually because the mind tends to abtract things, even the term mind is an abstraction, there isn't some entity called mind or my mind or your mind, it's just a term to be conveniently used without reifying the concept. Alas, at some point all words break down.

:namaste:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: NO self

Post by danieLion »

robertk wrote:Some more on "there is no self" .
It must be admitted hat someone could say " there is no self", and be having some sort of anilhilationist view such as the philosopher Hume, some scientists and materialism in general.

Thus more detail is needed to clarify, more about the vinnana sota, nama-rupa , conditionality, and dependent origination.
Hume thought self is merely a bundle of perceptions and was sceptical about knowledge in general but was not (an outright) annihilationist.
Where does Nietzsche's notion of self-overcoming fit into this?
Where does Korzybski's "is of identity" interpretation of Wittgenstein fit into this?
Where do William James' "stream of thought" and "self-consciousness" analyses fit into this?
Last edited by danieLion on Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply