Problems with no-self

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by SamKR »

Post deleted.
Last edited by SamKR on Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:23 pm, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by ground »

Alex123 wrote:
Dan74 wrote:Have you tried to examine this "centre"? Is it possibly part of the experience rather than something apart from it?
Yes, I tried to examine it. Of course it cannot be without 5 aggregates, but nevertheless the self as center of experience seems to "own" them.
But what about the sense of self, that which merely dependently arises and - if its dependent origination is not realized - is grasped as "self"? (This is not an argument!) :sage:
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by Ben »

Dan74 wrote:I don't think it is a matter of belief but of examination. When we try to look for the essence within, what do we find?
Well said, Dan.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by ground »

ground wrote:
Alex123 wrote:
Dan74 wrote:Have you tried to examine this "centre"? Is it possibly part of the experience rather than something apart from it?
Yes, I tried to examine it. Of course it cannot be without 5 aggregates, but nevertheless the self as center of experience seems to "own" them.
But what about the sense of self, that which merely dependently arises and - if its dependent origination is not realized - is grasped as "self"? (This is not an argument!) :sage:
Now a bit hypothetically ...
Realisation of the arising of a phenomenon is realisation of a dynamic process. It is realisation that first there is the absence of the phenomenon which then develops into its full-flegded presence. Realisation of the arising of a phenomenon therefore has as a condition that the state without it (the phenomenon) is known because otherwise the dynamic process of arising cannot be realized. Why? Because what is already there cannot be realized to be merely dependently arisen. So it seems that there is a kind of circularity here. All distracting concepts (concepts being inappropriate in the first place) in the context of "no-self" or "anatta" can only be dropped once the dependent arising of self (via sense of self) is "known" but this dependent arising can only be "known" if the state without sense of self (and self) is "known". And the latter is the reason why concentration qua meditation is suggested at all.

:sage:
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by SamKR »

Alex123 wrote:Wow. :shock: I can't believe it. I used to believe in no-self, but suddenly arguments for it lost their convincing power. :cry:
Arguments will lose their powers with another strong argument. Arguments are undependable, in my experience too. We need to base our insight in direct experience and not only arguments.
:anjali:
Last edited by SamKR on Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
barcsimalsi
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by barcsimalsi »

From my superficial understanding, not-self in Buddhism refers to things that we don't have complete control of, things that are conditioned.
Although we can move our body according to our will but we can't stop it from aging so the body is not self. So as feeling and consciousness which arises and ceases due to conditions.

Maybe the talk from this noble guy can give you a deeper meaning of self:

part2
He looks like and an arahant but i've no clue on most parts of his talks. :tongue:
pegembara
Posts: 3453
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by pegembara »

Alex123 wrote:
Dan74 wrote:I don't think it is a matter of belief but of examination. When we try to look for the essence within, what do we find?
This happened with my examination of my and others pro-anatta arguments. There is this center of experience that does feel and cognize things. Even though feelings, perceptions, intentions, thoughts, etc, change, this SAME center of experience remains. A child, youth, adult, old man can still have the same center of experience, same first person perspective. Of course when aggregates cease, self ceases as well. I don't see why self can't have impermanent duration, example: 80 years. I don't see why self can't be subject to external conditions.
This feelings, perceptions, intentions, thoughts come and go, right. It feels like their are yours right but their are not. You are merely experiencing them.
Where do thoughts come from? Could it be that thoughts come up first and only then do you take ownership of them? You can't cling to things which are impermanent?

The last bit is this knower (consciousness).
The last place, which is hard for a person to see, is the consciousness itself, the mind. This mind which a lot of people talk about, which I talk about a lot, to actually see it in its purity is very, very difficult. You see it in jhanas. What’s important after having a jhana is having known what the citta is, the mind. What the Buddha talked so much about in the suttas, having seen that then to apply the satipatthana. Reflect on the mind and ask yourself “is this me?” That which knows, that which is hearing this, which feels all the aches and pains in the body, which sees the sights around, which sees the flowers and the sunsets, that which sees and experiences. “Is that what I take to be me?” And look at this whole process of consciousness, the screen on which experience is played out.
Ajahn Brahm
http://www.theravada-dhamma.org/blog/?t ... hm&paged=2
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

barcsimalsi wrote:From my superficial understanding, not-self in Buddhism refers to things that we don't have complete control of, things that are conditioned.

Although we can move our body according to our will but we can't stop it from aging so the body is not self. So as feeling and consciousness which arises and ceases due to conditions.
Not-self refers to all conditioned things, and even the unconditioned (nibbāna) is not-self ("Sabbe dhammā anattā'ti").

The conception of self is an illusion, which arises through not seeing things as they really are. If we pay really careful attention by developing deep concentration, then the truth of the matter will become clear — not otherwise.

In his "Discourse on the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta" the Venerable Mahāsi Sayādaw says:
Here, seeing phenomena as, “This is not mine,” is the same as perceiving that they incessantly arise and pass away, that there is nothing delightful, nothing dependable, just suffering. Seeing, “I am not this,” is the same as perceiving that it is not permanent. Conceit arises believing in permanence. When truth is known about its impermanent nature, there is nothing to take pride in. Seeing “This is not my self,” is exactly the same as seeing that it is not-self. Failing to note every mental and physical phenomenon as it arises at the six sense-doors and then believing it to be permanent, conceit makes its appearance, and assumes, “I am this.” However, when it is perceived that phenomena do not last even for the blink of an eye, that everything is impermanent, then conceit cannot arise. When not-self is unknown, clinging to phenomena as belonging to a self arises. This is obvious and needs no elaboration.
Whether someone is an Arahant or not, is something that cannot be known just by looking at them. Someone who is talking about a Higher Self, clearly has not understood the Buddha's teaching on not-self.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by Ben »

Sadhu, Bhante!
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by binocular »

Alex123 wrote:Wow. :shock: I can't believe it. I used to believe in no-self, but suddenly arguments for it lost their convincing power.
Arguments for and against are not meant to convince people one way or another, but to stimulate thought on a matter.

Alex123 wrote:
polarbuddha101 wrote:but the Buddha says that anything that is impermanent is not fit to be taken as self, because then what is your self will change and thus it won't be yourself anymore cause it isn't the same self as the one before.
Why can't we say that Self has the body, feelings, etc which change? Even though these change, it is still the same person. Jack doesn't become John the next moment, Jane the third moment and Andrew the fourth moment. There is continuity of person from cradle to grave even though body and specific mental states do change.
If you want someone to flat out tell you that the self exists, that the body, the feelings, the mind etc. change, but the self is the same - talk to a Hare Krishna monk and have him provide you with scriptural references. In roundabout, they believe that what an ordinary person usually considers to be their self, is actually comprised of the body, the feelings, the mind, the intelligence, the false ego, and the soul; of which the soul is the actual self, while the others are not the self.

You can then compare some Buddhist teachings on the matter, and those of some other religions.

(Oddly enough, I find that there isn't much contradiction between what the Pali Canon teaches and what some Hindu school teach in matters of "self"; just that where the Pali Canon is silent, the Hindus have things to say.)

Alex123 wrote:This happened with my examination of my and others pro-anatta arguments. There is this center of experience that does feel and cognize things. Even though feelings, perceptions, intentions, thoughts, etc, change, this SAME center of experience remains. A child, youth, adult, old man can still have the same center of experience, same first person perspective.
By this "center of experience" here, you probably mean consciousness.

I don't see why self can't have impermanent duration, example: 80 years. I don't see why self can't be subject to external conditions.
A casual observation suggests that it hurts to think of oneself as such - "I will sooner or later cease to exist."
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
equilibrium
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by equilibrium »

Alex123 wrote:.....
In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?
(source: No-self or Not-self?, Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by reflection »

Very honest of you to recognize your feelings about no-self despite the usual arguments, and share that with fellow Buddhists. But if arguments are not enough (which I think they won't be for most of us), I suggest to stop thinking about it and take the way of samadhi. Whatever disappears in meditation, that surely was not self. See if this idea you have of the self can also disappear.

:namaste:
mogg
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:44 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by mogg »

Good post Bhante :twothumbsup:

Referencing the video posted above, that was meant as a joke right? Surely nobody could believe that someone who devotes that much attention to their hair could be an Arahant!
Last edited by mogg on Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by Alex123 »

ground wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Wow. :shock: I can't believe it. I used to believe in no-self, but suddenly arguments for it lost their convincing power. :cry:
So you believed that it is a matter of arguments?
When some extraordinary thing is postulated, it better be well justified.
ground wrote:
Alex123 wrote: For example:

Why can't someone postulate:
1) Self that is impermanent (born 1950, died at 2030 for example)?
2) Self that is not a certain momentary dhamma, but possesses dhammas?
3) Self that is subject to external conditions?
Why shouldn't someone postulate all this?

See I am postulating the horn of a hare. Yes, I can. :sage:
To put it differently: Why can't one refute anatta as presented in the suttas and commentaries with above 3 arguments?


I feel almost ready to sit in the corner and cry me a river. :(
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by Alex123 »

binocular wrote:By this "center of experience" here, you probably mean consciousness.
Yes. But, it is something constant of consciousness. "Binocular" has one "I am", Alex has another. Two different "streams" of consciousness. I cannot cognize what you cognize, and you cannot cognize what I cognize.
binocular wrote:
I don't see why self can't have impermanent duration, example: 80 years. I don't see why self can't be subject to external conditions.
A casual observation suggests that it hurts to think of oneself as such - "I will sooner or later cease to exist."
If my death means death of suffering, then good riddance! Just like Alex didn't care for countless of billions of years prior to Alex's birth, neither will Alex care for countless of billions of years after death.

Reflecting on my experience, the best time of my life is when I am totally asleep and don't cognize anything at all.
Post Reply