Why frightened? Even one most influential mahayanan & zen master un-timidly used the phrase "no self".

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why frightened? Even one most influential mahayanan & zen master un-timidly used the phrase "no self".

Post by DooDoot »

Volo wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 1:06 pm
In this example it's not said "no ego", but "ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit do not exist (or "aren't there") (na honti)".
Sure. But "no ego" appears the same as "ego does not exist".
Volo wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 1:06 pm
BTW, can somebody briefly explain to me the difference "no self" vs. "not self" (i mean philosophy behind it)? I don't find distinction "An = not. Na = no" satisfactory, but before addressing it I would like to know what is the theory behind "no self"/"not self".
"Not-self" ("anatta") appears to be a statement of dispossession towards things & a characteristic of things as not belonging, namely: '"This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am" (SN 22.59). It appears similar to "na tumhākaṃ" ("not yours").

Where as "void of self" ("sunnata" of atta) appears to refer to the inherent absence of self in the universe, namely: "the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self".

Although I am only guessing the above, the impression is "anatta" was the 1st teaching of self-negation ever made (namely, in SN 22.59) thus is less profound than sunnata. "Anatta" appears similar to telling a child: "That thing is not yours; don't touch it; it doesn't belong to you".
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 5:29 pm
Ven. Sujato pointed out:
... the distinction between “not-self” and “no-self” is not found in Pali ...
I would guess Ven Sujato is wrong. I already pointed out the following translations make no sense:
Form, monks, is no self.

Feeling is no self...

Perception is no self...

[Mental] fabrications are no self...

Consciousness is no self.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Koṭṭhita, you should give up desire for what is no-self.
And what is no-self?
The eye,
sights,
eye consciousness,
and eye contact are no-self: you should give up desire for them.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.164/en/sujato
Its like say: "a dog is no cat" instead of saying "a dog is not a cat".

What is the difference? :shrug: We generally do not think or say: "consciousness is a self" or "the body is a self". Instead, people ordinarily say: "My consciousness; my feeling, my body", etc. People attach to the five aggregates as "my aggregates", which is why the "not-self" appears to be the antidote.
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 5:29 pm
Ven. Buddhadasa [not quibble here :smile: ] clearly explained this. He rejected the concept of “No-self” when it is used in the view of nihilism or Annihilationism. I wrote that in "prequisites" to understand Ven. Buddhadasa's "no self" and Not "no self".
I think it needs to be questioned if Ven. Buddhadasa was engaged in papanca here, as follows:
Buddhadasa wrote:If students would like to remember the specific technical terms, there are three. The first term is
"attā": there is attā which is attā. The second term is anattā: there is attā that is not-self :roll: , that is anattā. The third term is nirattā: without any kind of attā at all, nothingness. One extreme of attā is that it exists fully. The other extreme is no attā at all. Anattā, the self which is not self, is neither extreme, and is correct. There are three words: attā, anattā, and nirattā. They're totally different. Understand the meaning of these three words, then you'll understand everything.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Budd ... ebirth.pdf
Does the Pali word "nirattā" mean "no self"? :shrug:

The following I think also must be questioned or examined for more papanca:
Buddhadasa wrote:The first group is the positive extreme. They believe there is attā in the full meaning of attā .This is
called sassatadiţţhi, the belief in full existence or being. The second sort is the middle. There is the thing which you call "attā" but it isn't really attā, it's anattā. This is the middle or correct view. It's called
sammādiţţhi. Then the negative extreme holds that there is no existence of any kind. There's no attā in
any sense. This is called natthikadiţţhi. sassatadiţţhi is full, unchanging existence; natthikadiţţhi isn't anything at all. In the middle is correct Buddhism. There exists the thing which you all call" attā."
Something is there to be called "attā" or "anattā." That is, there is everything, but we don't call it or its
constituent parts "attā." They are anattā. Right here is sammādiţţhi. This extreme is sassatā, which is
wrong. That extreme is natthikā, which is wrong. In the middle are only the things which shouldn't be
called attā, which are anattā. This is the point we must especially study and learn.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Budd ... ebirth.pdf
"Natthikadiţţhi" is found in Snp 2.2 and appears simply a doctrine of disbelief in good kamma, as follows:
Those people of desires and pleasures unrestrained,
greedy for tastes with impurity mixed in,
of nihilistic views, unstable, hard to train:
this is carrion-stench, not the eating of meat.

The rough, the cruel, backbiters and betrayers,
those void of compassion, extremely arrogant,
the miserly, to others never giving anything:
this is carrion-stench, not the eating of meat.

https://suttacentral.net/snp2.2/en/mills
A more common similar word is natthikavāda, which does not appear to mean "no self", as follows:
But let’s assume that those who say that there is no other world are correct.

Kāmaṃ kho pana māhu paro loko, hotu nesaṃ bhavataṃ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṃ saccaṃ vacanaṃ;

Regardless, that individual is still criticized by sensible people in the present life as being an immoral individual of wrong view, a nihilist [disbeliever].’

atha ca panāyaṃ bhavaṃ purisapuggalo diṭṭheva dhamme viññūnaṃ gārayho—dussīlo purisapuggalo micchādiṭṭhi natthikavādo’ti

https://suttacentral.net/mn60/en/sujato
"Natthikavādo" simply appears to mean to not believe in results of kamma leading to other worlds. It appears unrelated to a doctrine of "no self". Your beloved Ven. Buddhadasa appears highly questionable in his ideas about "nirattā" & "natthikadiţţhi" referring to "no self". :alien:

:thinking:

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Protecting genuine Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: Why frightened? Even one most influential mahayanan & zen master un-timidly used the phrase "no self".

Post by Volo »

DooDoot wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 12:20 pm
Volo wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 1:06 pm
In this example it's not said "no ego", but "ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit do not exist (or "aren't there") (na honti)".
Sure. But "no ego" appears the same as "ego does not exist".
You have given this example to illustrate that "na=no". My point is that in your example "na=not" ("does not exist").
Its like say: "a dog is no cat" instead of saying "a dog is not a cat".
Imo, the meaning of both sentences is the same, the first is just not proper English. If the discussion is simply about what is better in English "no self" or "not self" then I will leave it to native English speakers.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why frightened? Even one most influential mahayanan & zen master un-timidly used the phrase "no self".

Post by DooDoot »

Volo wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 1:05 pm
Imo, the meaning of both sentences is the same, the first is just not proper English.
Its not the same. A dog is always not a cat. But in English, we might say about Volo's basketball skills: "That Volo is no Michael Jordon", which does not mean Volo cannot play basketball. It only means Volo cannot play basketball the same as Michael Jordan.
Volo wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 1:05 pm
If the discussion is simply about what is better in English "no self" or "not self" then I will leave it to native English speakers.
I also said: We generally do not think or say: "consciousness is a self" or "the body is a self". Instead, people ordinarily say: "My consciousness; my feeling, my body", etc. People attach to the five aggregates as "my aggregates", which is why the "not-self" appears to be the antidote to attachment. Ignorance claims: "I am this". But wisdom knows: "I am not this".
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 4435
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Why frightened? Even one most influential mahayanan & zen master un-timidly used the phrase "no self".

Post by cappuccino »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: These three teachings of the Buddha are:
impermanence, stress & impersonality

Post Reply