http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .niza.html“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]
What is controlling?
Re: What is controlling?
The Buddha did not say that individual choices are an illusion or fallacy. He strongly denied determinism/fatalism. Nor did he deny self-control. On the contrary:
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: What is controlling?
I've been wanting to discuss this doer thing and now that you have posted it maybe here is the chance. The term self-doer can for me have two meanings: 1) a self which has the function of doing.....or 2) a thing which creates a self like a "self-maker". I'm wondering what the difference is between "self" and "self-doer" and I'm reasonably sure that the answer lies in the Pali.kirk5a wrote:The Buddha did not say that individual choices are an illusion or fallacy. He strongly denied determinism/fatalism. Nor did he deny self-control. On the contrary:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .niza.html“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]
chownah
-
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:33 am
Re: What is controlling?
Thanks for bringing this up. It is one of the sutta i'm not clear of.kirk5a wrote:The Buddha did not say that individual choices are an illusion or fallacy. He strongly denied determinism/fatalism. Nor did he deny self-control. On the contrary:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .niza.html“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]
Quoting from Isidatta sutta, Ven. Isidatta explained that the self is just a view:
Although it isn't the words from Buddha it is support by what Buddha taught in Anattalakkhana sutta."Now, householder, are you asking this: 'Concerning the various views that arise in the world... when what is present do they come into being, and what is absent do they not come into being?'?"
"Yes, venerable sir."
"Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."
"But, venerable sir, how does self-identity view come into being?"
"There is the case, householder, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form[2] to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view comes into being."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
I've the same feeling on this.chownah wrote: I'm wondering what the difference is between "self" and "self-doer" and I'm reasonably sure that the answer lies in the Pali.
chownah
Re: What is controlling?
The operative word is "assumes". We assume the body, feelings, emotions, thoughts, perceptions and consciousness to be ours. If we are truly in control, we would not age, happiness is available 24/7 and we can make sure only good thoughts occur to us. Nibbana would be ours for taking. No need to follow the N8FP. But since that is not true we need to follow the instructions as laid down be the Buddha. On a contrary, it is the self view that is the cause of all the trouble. We need to fully understand what this self is to escape from the same self ( a true paradox)."There is the case, householder, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form[2] to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view comes into being."
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Re: What is controlling?
"self-identity view" (sakkāya diṭṭhi) is as explained in the quotation above. Those are wrong assumptions. Recognizing that beings have the ability to initiate an action, make an exertion, make an effort, exercise steadfastness, persistence, and endeavoring is not self-identity view. Getting these things mixed up, thinking the Buddha taught the total negation of individual beings, having an extreme view about lack of control, is a confused view of the teachings.barcsimalsi wrote: Thanks for bringing this up. It is one of the sutta i'm not clear of.
Quoting from Isidatta sutta, Ven. Isidatta explained that the self is just a view:Although it isn't the words from Buddha it is support by what Buddha taught in Anattalakkhana sutta."Now, householder, are you asking this: 'Concerning the various views that arise in the world... when what is present do they come into being, and what is absent do they not come into being?'?"
"Yes, venerable sir."
"Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."
"But, venerable sir, how does self-identity view come into being?"
"There is the case, householder, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form[2] to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view comes into being."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
I've the same feeling on this.chownah wrote: I'm wondering what the difference is between "self" and "self-doer" and I'm reasonably sure that the answer lies in the Pali.
chownah
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
- reflection
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Re: What is controlling?
The attakari sutta is a bit off an odd duck and the word "attakara" (translated as self doer) as far as I know only occurs there without a direct explanation. The full meaning of a word does not always have to be made up by its components, so it isn't always clear from the pali. You have to look in the context. Quite clearly "atta" here does not mean a self as we usually see it, because that is denied so many times.
So I think it goes very far to conclude from that sutta alone that the Buddha thought there is free will. And we have to look at this sutta in context of all the others, instead of the other way around. There are so many suttas that say volitions are not self, and also "one can't have it of *any aggregate*, 'let it be thus'".
So to me the sutta does not imply a free will. I see the answer lying in sentences such as this:
This could be seen as opposed to people who may think that there is a God who controls it all - or that we are part of his dream or whatever. That would explain the view of the brahmin.
So I think it goes very far to conclude from that sutta alone that the Buddha thought there is free will. And we have to look at this sutta in context of all the others, instead of the other way around. There are so many suttas that say volitions are not self, and also "one can't have it of *any aggregate*, 'let it be thus'".
So to me the sutta does not imply a free will. I see the answer lying in sentences such as this:
As also seen in the notes the word of is to be interpreted as among. So the sutta is just saying there are beings among beings. There are individual beings, and of each being its actions are part of that individual being. One beings actions are not part of another being. So that beings have a self or whatever else which has free choice - that isn't said in this sutta."“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of (among) such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]"
This could be seen as opposed to people who may think that there is a God who controls it all - or that we are part of his dream or whatever. That would explain the view of the brahmin.
Re: What is controlling?
Teasing mere individual continuity apart from a sense of personal existence is a very difficult task. Limited free will is a feature of individual continuity; belief in a personal existence is the root of asking "who controls", I think. Same as asking, "which self do non-self-actions affect?" The question has to bring in an assumption from outside the Dhamma.
- "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: What is controlling?
The Attakari sutta does not implies that way, it says the self-doing is conditioned by the element of initiating so the "self-doer" comes secondary to "element". And the question in interest lies more on what is the element of initiating that give rise to self-doing.kirk5a wrote: Recognizing that beings have the ability to initiate an action, make an exertion, make an effort, exercise steadfastness, persistence, and endeavoring is not self-identity view.
EDIT:
Sorry for the mistake above, i'm sure i misunderstood something. I'm not sure which is the primary cause, the element of initiating or the self-doer?
Thank you everyone for the replies.
Re: What is controlling?
You could try some things to see if you can learn something about how the mind is controlled. Before reading further, here is what I will do. I will try to make you lose control of your mind. You should pay close attention to your mind as you lose control of it to see what you can see about the process. I will give you a task which will start with you controlling your mind to accomplish the task and end with you losing control of your mind. Try to detect the moment you lose control. Before starting you should clear your mind and calm it a bit so that you can observe it better. It's is an experiment, I hope it works.
I am going to type backwards......I want you to figure out what I typed but do not think about it...do not imagine it's appearance or taste or smell or texture or sound:
maerc eci
Could you detect the moment when you lost control?
chownah
I am going to type backwards......I want you to figure out what I typed but do not think about it...do not imagine it's appearance or taste or smell or texture or sound:
maerc eci
Could you detect the moment when you lost control?
chownah
Re: What is controlling?
I could work it out what you typed back word based on my previous knowledge (karma).
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: What is controlling?
Volition is mental, so I would say the element of initiating is a function of the mind.barcsimalsi wrote:And the question in interest lies more on what is the element of initiating that give rise to self-doing.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
-
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:33 am
Re: What is controlling?
The moment awareness is not on the instruction, i guess. Perhaps you can give a better elaboration on that specific moment.chownah wrote:
I am going to type backwards......I want you to figure out what I typed but do not think about it...do not imagine it's appearance or taste or smell or texture or sound:
maerc eci
Could you detect the moment when you lost control?
chownah
Thanks for helping.
-
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:33 am
Re: What is controlling?
Happen to come across the Bahudhatuka Sutta , it covers about various elements. Is there any way it can help clarify the message in the Attakari Sutta?kirk5a wrote:Volition is mental, so I would say the element of initiating is a function of the mind.barcsimalsi wrote:And the question in interest lies more on what is the element of initiating that give rise to self-doing.
Re: What is controlling?
reflection wrote:The attakari sutta is a bit off an odd duck and the word "attakara" (translated as self doer) as far as I know only occurs there without a direct explanation. The full meaning of a word does not always have to be made up by its components, so it isn't always clear from the pali. You have to look in the context. Quite clearly "atta" here does not mean a self as we usually see it, because that is denied so many times.
Hi hi.
Not really an odd duck, since there's a Chinese parallel in SA 459 that also has 自作 which corresponds nicely to attakāra. The translator into Chinese obviously thought that the atta was not referring to "Self"/Atman, but was being used as a very common reflexive pronoun (eg myself, himself etc). I think if one looks at AN 6.38 is in its entirety, it would be clear that the Pali reading for the atta should also be a self-reflexive pronoun, and does not refer to a "Self".
So, you have self-doer (attakāra) and other-doer (parakāra). Why should atta be given a dull reading as a reflexive pronoun, rather than the more exciting reading of a "Self"? Take a look at the clue here -
I've added the quotation marks into the underlined text, as they are in the Pali.So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, "this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer".
Yaṃ kho brāhmaṇa ārambhadhātuyā sati ārambhavanto sattā paññāyantī, ti ayaṃ sattānaṃ attakāro, ayaṃ parakāroti.
The trick is to pay attention to the pronoun "this" = ayaṃ. You might be wondering why the Buddha did not say "This is the self-doer, that is the other-doer". Actually, He did. This is because in an oral context, ayaṃ functions as a deictic pronoun (see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis). In an oral setting, the Buddha could gesture with His hands to point to 2 different items, but verbally, both would be identified by "this".
So, the translation was over-literal and a better translation would therefore be "This is the self-doer, that is the other-doer". Based on the context where it is said that "beings (plural) are clearly discerned", the Buddha was pointing to a population of beings. He was essentially teasing out one doer from another doer. It looks to me from the context and the grammar, "self-doer" is actually an idiomatic expression for "a doer".
Re: What is controlling?
according to the commentary of the attakari sutta the Brahim was a follower of makkali gosala. he was a famous wrong viewer of the time who held that there was no such thing as kamma: one could live a good life or live a life where one went about killing and raping to the greatest extent, it didnt matter too much as at death all would have the same fate, back to the mud, dust.
in this sutta the Buddha was trying to help the Brahmin see that there is the result of action. it was not a sutta that had the goal of explaining anatta.
in this sutta the Buddha was trying to help the Brahmin see that there is the result of action. it was not a sutta that had the goal of explaining anatta.