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.
Problems with no-self
Re: Problems with no-self
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.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. 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.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?
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.
- Bhikkhu Pesala
- Posts: 4646
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm
Re: Problems with no-self
Not-self refers to all conditioned things, and even the unconditioned (nibbāna) is not-self ("Sabbe dhammā anattā'ti").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.
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:
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.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.
Blog • Pāli Fonts • In This Very Life • Buddhist Chronicles • Software (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
Re: Problems with no-self
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 Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- 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 Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: Problems with no-self
Arguments for and against are not meant to convince people one way or another, but to stimulate thought on a matter.Alex123 wrote:Wow. I can't believe it. I used to believe in no-self, but suddenly arguments for it lost their convincing power.
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.Alex123 wrote: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.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.
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.)
By this "center of experience" here, you probably mean consciousness.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.
A casual observation suggests that it hurts to think of oneself as such - "I will sooner or later cease to exist."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.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
- equilibrium
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am
Re: Problems with no-self
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?Alex123 wrote:.....
(source: No-self or Not-self?, Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
- reflection
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Re: Problems with no-self
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.
Re: Problems with no-self
Good post Bhante
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!
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.
Re: Problems with no-self
When some extraordinary thing is postulated, it better be well justified.ground wrote:So you believed that it is a matter of arguments?Alex123 wrote:Wow. I can't believe it. I used to believe in no-self, but suddenly arguments for it lost their convincing power.
To put it differently: Why can't one refute anatta as presented in the suttas and commentaries with above 3 arguments?ground wrote:Why shouldn't someone postulate all this?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?
See I am postulating the horn of a hare. Yes, I can.
I feel almost ready to sit in the corner and cry me a river.
Re: Problems with no-self
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:By this "center of experience" here, you probably mean consciousness.
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.binocular wrote:A casual observation suggests that it hurts to think of oneself as such - "I will sooner or later cease to exist."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.
Reflecting on my experience, the best time of my life is when I am totally asleep and don't cognize anything at all.
Re: Problems with no-self
Anatta isn't a philosophical argument to be upheld or refuted... reasoned acceptance always turns out one of two ways, so anatta isn't something to be accepted or rejected in this way.Alex123 wrote:To put it differently: Why can't one refute anatta as presented in the suttas and commentaries with above 3 arguments?
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
-
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:33 am
Re: Problems with no-self
Actually i was quite convinced by that unblinking higherself speech that he had obtained some serious attainment. Good thing Bhante arrived in time.mogg wrote:
Referencing the video posted above, that was meant as a joke right?
Please stop laughing at him, it makes me feel bad.
Re: Problems with no-self
But it is not about ideas but experiences. If you postulate self you should know what it is you are talking about. If you postulate no-self you should know what you are talking about. You should know your experience and how can you know by means of arguments instead of observation?Alex123 wrote:When some extraordinary thing is postulated, it better be well justified.ground wrote:So you believed that it is a matter of arguments?Alex123 wrote:Wow. I can't believe it. I used to believe in no-self, but suddenly arguments for it lost their convincing power.
You can and you can refute atta as well. But how does this relate to your experience?Alex123 wrote:To put it differently: Why can't one refute anatta as presented in the suttas and commentaries with above 3 arguments?ground wrote:Why shouldn't someone postulate all this?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?
See I am postulating the horn of a hare. Yes, I can.
Can you recognize the sense of self being the basis of this sadness? This sense of "I" and "mine"? it is not always there and not always full-flegded but the moment it makes itself felt it feels like permanent, doesn't it? But there is no permanent entity, it comes and goes depending on conditions.Alex123 wrote: I feel almost ready to sit in the corner and cry me a river.
Re: Problems with no-self
You mean that the 80 year old was really born in 1950? Or was it the newborn that came through the birth canal (birth by convention) in 1950? The 80 year old was never born in this sense.Self that is impermanent (born 1950, died at 2030 for example)?
Did the newborn die in 2030? If by death you mean the heart and breathing stopping, a casual observer can see that the newborn never died. It is the old man who died!
In impermanence, there is no self to be found.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Re: Problems with no-self
Very pleased to see your thoughts are evolving, Alex123.
The idea of "no-self" has become dogma in some Buddhist circles. But it does not correspond with our experience, offers no help in understanding, and usually results in illogical, convoluted nonsense passing off as wisdom.
There is a use for this concept, of course, and it should be in understanding the aggregates from the point of meditation. Think of it as an avenue of approach, or a framework for understanding the basics of experience.
As a practice, however, it is beyond useless. It's downright dangerous--guaranteed to create confusion.
The idea of "no-self" has become dogma in some Buddhist circles. But it does not correspond with our experience, offers no help in understanding, and usually results in illogical, convoluted nonsense passing off as wisdom.
There is a use for this concept, of course, and it should be in understanding the aggregates from the point of meditation. Think of it as an avenue of approach, or a framework for understanding the basics of experience.
As a practice, however, it is beyond useless. It's downright dangerous--guaranteed to create confusion.