Identity View

[DarrenM]

So in line with this Sutta, Identity is “these five clinging Aggregates”. Identity View comes about when an ordinary person “regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form”, and the sane for the other 5 Aggregates.

This means the Sutta is presuming a view that Self has something to do with at least one of the Five Aggregates. The Sutta states that Noble ones do not regard Self as anything to do with any of the Aggregates.

What the ordinary person does not understand that it is Craving that is the origin of Identity View, and the Cessation of Craving is the Cessation of Identity View, with the Noble Eightfold path leading to the Cessation of Craving. This the Sutta does state.

So to the argument of self, no-self. This Sutta seems to say that for the Noble ones there isn’t a self to be found amongst or separate/apart from the Aggregates. There is nowhere else a Self could possibly be other than that. Therefore there is no self.

What is Self (Atta) though?, where is it defined in the Suttas?
‘I’ll say it’s the opposite of what’s impermanent, suffering and perishable, as per SN22.59,

“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Is feeling permanent or impermanent?… Is perception permanent or impermanent?… Are volitional formations permanent or impermanent?… Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”— “Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

So Self (Atta), would be something permanent, happiness and not subject to change. That’s my understanding so far. I’d be interested in anyone with the view that the Buddha did not state there isn’t a Self.

Next onto the difference between Atta and Jivam? Anyone care to explain.

[DarrenM]

So in line with this Sutta, Identity is “these five clinging Aggregates”. Identity View comes about when an ordinary person “regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form”, and the sane for the other 5 Aggregates.

This means the Sutta is presuming a view that Self has something to do with at least one of the Five Aggregates. The Sutta states that Noble ones do not regard Self as anything to do with any of the Aggregates.

What the ordinary person does not understand that it is Craving that is the origin of Identity View, and the Cessation of Craving is the Cessation of Identity View, with the Noble Eightfold path leading to the Cessation of Craving. This the Sutta does state.

So to the argument of self, no-self. This Sutta seems to say that for the Noble ones there isn’t a self to be found amongst or separate/apart from the Aggregates. There is nowhere else a Self could possibly be other than that. Therefore there is no self.

What is Self (Atta) though?, where is it defined in the Suttas?
‘I’ll say it’s the opposite of what’s impermanent, suffering and perishable, as per SN22.59,

“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Is feeling permanent or impermanent?… Is perception permanent or impermanent?… Are volitional formations permanent or impermanent?… Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”— “Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

So Self (Atta), would be something permanent, happiness and not subject to change. That’s my understanding so far. I’d be interested in anyone with the view that the Buddha did not state there isn’t a Self.

Next onto the difference between Atta and Jivam, just seen a thread that may help.

[cappuccino]

the teaching is selflessness

no thing is your self

[Ontheway]

Dhammasaṅgaṇī - Nikkhepakaṇḍaṃ

1007.Tattha katamā sakkāyadiṭṭhi? Idha assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto:

rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ.

Vedanaṃ attato samanupassati, vedanāvantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā vedanaṃ, vedanāya vā attānaṃ.

Saññaṃ attato samanupassati, saññāvantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā saññaṃ, saññāya vā attānaṃ.

Saṅkhāre attato samanupassati, saṅkhāravantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā saṅkhāre, saṅkhāresu vā attānaṃ.

Viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati, viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā viññāṇaṃ, viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ.

Yā evarūpā diṭṭhi diṭṭhigataṃ diṭṭhigahanaṃ diṭṭhikantāro diṭṭhivisūkāyikaṃ diṭṭhivipphanditaṃ diṭṭhisaṃyojanaṃ gāho paṭiggāho abhiniveso parāmāso kummaggo micchāpatho micchattaṃ titthāyatanaṃ vipariyāsaggāho – ayaṃ vuccati sakkāyadiṭṭhi.

ENG:
What is the sakkāyadiṭṭhi?
Here an uninformed worldling, not in the habit of associating with Noble Ones, unskilled in the Teachings of the Noble Ones, untrained in the Teachings of the Noble Ones, not in the habit of associating with truthful persons, unskilled in the Teachings of the truthful persons, untrained in the Teachings of the truthful persons; perceives:

Rūpa as Self; the rest of the Aggregates as Self having Rūpa; Rūpa existing in Self; Self existing in Rūpa.

Vedanā as Self; the rest of the Aggregates as Self having Vedanā; Vedanā existing in Self; Self existing in Vedanā.

Saññā as Self; the rest of the Aggregates as Self having Saññā; Saññā existing in Self; Self existing in Saññā.

Saṅkhāra as Self; the rest of the Aggregates as Self having Saṅkhāra; Saṅkhāra existing in Self; Self existing in Saṅkhāra.

Viññāṇa as Self; the rest of the Aggregates as Self having Viññāṇa; Viññāṇa existing in Self; Self existing in Viññāṇa.

There are such (wrong) view, wrong view of that nature, the thicket of views, the wilderness of view, the thorny spike of view, the inconsistency of view, the fetter of view, obsession of view, persistent obsession of view, adherence to view, contagion (which is the wrong view), detestable path, wrong course, wrongness, base of wrong view, tenacity of view – this is sakkāyadiṭṭhi.

[MikeRalphKing]

The idea of the sutta is that nothing can be considered self, that there is no self whatsoever.

no self isn't correct

On Self, No Self, and Not-self

I'm not sure that it is helpful to keep relying on the Buddha's comments on no self to Vacchagotta. As others pointed out, what the Buddha is responding to is Vacchagotta's entire collection of fixed views. He is not advanced enough yet to discern right view from his thicket, wilderness etc of views. At the same time the Buddha wants to ensure that Vacchagotta does not veer into annihilationism. The Buddha points out in SN 22.103 it is cessation of identity (identity view, personality, personality view) that is crucial. He reiterates that the origin of identity arises in craving for sensual pleasures and either craving for existence or craving for extermination. In my travels I would estimate there is much more craving for existence than craving for extermination in the seekers I meet. We cannot know, but the Buddha may have discerned that Vacchagotta was of the latter type, so, rarely, makes his comments accordingly.

In general, given the fluidity of both the English language and the Buddha's mentation, I would suggest that saying "no self" is an incorrect understanding of the Buddha's teachings is not that helpful. It has led Thanissaro Bhikkhu to publish a most misleading article https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/ For Thanissaro to write that "'There is no self' is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes" is simply to muddy the waters. The Buddha clearly teaches the cessation of personality, teaches the non-existence of personality. What is personality but another word for self?

[cappuccino]

Buddha's comments on no self to Vacchagotta.

The scripture is intended for you


You have confusion


Ignore this at your own peril

[cappuccino]

I woke up at 3 am to say that

[pops]

The idea of the sutta is that nothing can be considered self, that there is no self whatsoever.

no self isn't correct

On Self, No Self, and Not-self

I'm not sure that it is helpful to keep relying on the Buddha's comments on no self to Vacchagotta. As others pointed out, what the Buddha is responding to is Vacchagotta's entire collection of fixed views. He is not advanced enough yet to discern right view from his thicket, wilderness etc of views. At the same time the Buddha wants to ensure that Vacchagotta does not veer into annihilationism. The Buddha points out in SN 22.103 it is cessation of identity (identity view, personality, personality view) that is crucial. He reiterates that the origin of identity arises in craving for sensual pleasures and either craving for existence or craving for extermination. In my travels I would estimate there is much more craving for existence than craving for extermination in the seekers I meet. We cannot know, but the Buddha may have discerned that Vacchagotta was of the latter type, so, rarely, makes his comments accordingly.

In general, given the fluidity of both the English language and the Buddha's mentation, I would suggest that saying "no self" is an incorrect understanding of the Buddha's teachings is not that helpful. It has led Thanissaro Bhikkhu to publish a most misleading article https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/ For Thanissaro to write that "'There is no self' is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes" is simply to muddy the waters. The Buddha clearly teaches the cessation of personality, teaches the non-existence of personality. What is personality but another word for self?

How can one teach the cessation of personality and at the same time declare that thing (which has to cease) as non existing?

You don’t want to add to muddy waters don’t you …

[MikeRalphKing]

I woke up at 3 am to say that

While I am rather touched that you woke up at 3 am to post your comment, your kind gesture remains futile while you stay in "ultra-enigmatic" mode.

You say: "The scripture is intended for you." Which scripture? Who intended it?

You write: "You have confusion". Where? On what? Why do you think that?

You write: "Ignore this at your peril." Ignore what? What peril?

[pops]

So in line with this Sutta, Identity is “these five clinging Aggregates”. Identity View comes about when an ordinary person “regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form”, and the sane for the other 5 Aggregates.

This means the Sutta is presuming a view that Self has something to do with at least one of the Five Aggregates. The Sutta states that Noble ones do not regard Self as anything to do with any of the Aggregates.

What the ordinary person does not understand that it is Craving that is the origin of Identity View, and the Cessation of Craving is the Cessation of Identity View, with the Noble Eightfold path leading to the Cessation of Craving. This the Sutta does state.

So to the argument of self, no-self. This Sutta seems to say that for the Noble ones there isn’t a self to be found amongst or separate/apart from the Aggregates. There is nowhere else a Self could possibly be other than that. Therefore there is no self.

What is Self (Atta) though?, where is it defined in the Suttas?
‘I’ll say it’s the opposite of what’s impermanent, suffering and perishable, as per SN22.59,

“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Is feeling permanent or impermanent?… Is perception permanent or impermanent?… Are volitional formations permanent or impermanent?… Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”— “Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

So Self (Atta), would be something permanent, happiness and not subject to change. That’s my understanding so far. I’d be interested in anyone with the view that the Buddha did not state there isn’t a Self.

I don’t know of that kind of statement. So I wouldn’t say it’s just a view. More of a fact, that Buddha didn’t teach an extreme conclusion or strong concept like that ‚there is no self‘.

Maybe more helpful: the presented thoughts could seem like a promising start into more analysis and the gaining of more subtle insights concerning also the mostly to greed (also anger for example) bounded concepts of ‚existence (of things and phenomena)‘ and ‚not existence (of things etc)‘.

[MikeRalphKing]

How can one teach the cessation of personality and at the same time declare that thing (which has to cease) as non existing?

You don’t want to add to muddy waters don’t you …

Picking a sutta, MN 44, rather at random, we have Dhammadinna's answer to your question (endorsed at the end of the sutta as what the Buddha would have said had he been asked).

She says that "an untaught ordinary person (etc, in the usual formulation)" regards each of the five aggregates as as self, or self as possessed of the aggregate, or the aggregate as in self, or self as in the aggregate, giving rise to 20 types of personality view (as discussed here). In MN 22 the Buddha uses the formulation, "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self", giving rise to 15 types of personality view. (I mention this so we don't get hung up on any particular formulation.)

Either way the answer is clear: the thing which has to cease has arisen through the ignorance (or craving) of the "untaught ordinary person." What arises from ignorance (or craving), one could say is unreal, without substance and leads only to suffering. In that sense it does not exist.

[robertk]

Buddha's comments on no self to Vacchagotta.

The scripture is intended for you


You have confusion


Ignore this at your own peril

Mod note : in this classical Theravada forum your self view beliefs are not permitted.
Also your post has a flavour of karmic retribution which is against terms of service

[Suddh]

In general, given the fluidity of both the English language and the Buddha's mentation, I would suggest that saying "no self" is an incorrect understanding of the Buddha's teachings is not that helpful. It has led Thanissaro Bhikkhu to publish a most misleading article https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/ For Thanissaro to write that "'There is no self' is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes" is simply to muddy the waters. The Buddha clearly teaches the cessation of personality, teaches the non-existence of personality. What is personality but another word for self?

Literal translation of one of the most famous verses from the Dhammapada:

Attā hi attano nātho
The self is the self's protector/refuge
Ko hi nātho paro siyā
For who else would be (its) protector/refuge?
Attanā hi sudantena
With a self well-tamed
Nāthaṁ labhati dullabhaṁ.
One gains the protector/refuge that's hard to attain.

The Buddha frequently mentions the importance of taming, training and guarding the self. Here he shows that when the self is well-tamed it brings uncommon benefit.

(Interestingly, "mind" can legitimately replace "self" in the above sentence.)

Elsewhere the Buddha teaches monks to make their selves an island by fulfilling the practice of satipaṭṭhāna - his supreme, one-way path for training the mind.

Literal translation:

attadīpā viharatha attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā

Dwell with the self as an island, the self as a refuge, with no other refuge.

(Mahāparinibbānasutta)

So what we can say for sure is:

1. The Buddha quite often mentioned the self in positive terms, as a thing of great importance that should be trained.

2. That he never once said "there is no self", even when directly asked.

3. That he described the teaching "there is no self" as being on the side of the extreme of annihilationism.

4. That he depicted it as an unbeneficial and confusing teaching.

Thus we can conclude that it would be unwise to assume that he in any way meant for this inference to be drawn from his teaching on not-self.

To draw an inference from the Buddha's teachings where it is unwarranted is, as he himself said, to slander the Tathāgata and generate much demerit.

[pops]

How can one teach the cessation of personality and at the same time declare that thing (which has to cease) as non existing?

You don’t want to add to muddy waters don’t you …

Picking a sutta, MN 44, rather at random, we have Dhammadinna's answer to your question (endorsed at the end of the sutta as what the Buddha would have said had he been asked).

She says that "an untaught ordinary person (etc, in the usual formulation)" regards each of the five aggregates as as self, or self as possessed of the aggregate, or the aggregate as in self, or self as in the aggregate, giving rise to 20 types of personality view (as discussed here). In MN 22 the Buddha uses the formulation, "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self", giving rise to 15 types of personality view. (I mention this so we don't get hung up on any particular formulation.)

Either way the answer is clear: the thing which has to cease has arisen through the ignorance (or craving) of the "untaught ordinary person." What arises from ignorance (or craving), one could say is unreal, without substance and leads only to suffering. In that sense it does not exist.

i am sorry i dont find that very clear. What does not exist? The craving, the thoughts about other persons / beings, thoughts about oneself?

Take (an arisen) sensual thought for example. Does it not exist?

I am not convinced that a simple conceptual ‚understanding’ of what does exist and what not will actually help in dealing with the everpresent mental factors that condition thinking (thoughts) speaking and acting.

[Ceisiwr]

Literal translation of one of the most famous verses from the Dhammapada:

Attā hi attano nātho
The self is the self's protector/refuge
Ko hi nātho paro siyā
For who else would be (its) protector/refuge?
Attanā hi sudantena
With a self well-tamed
Nāthaṁ labhati dullabhaṁ.
One gains the protector/refuge that's hard to attain.

The Buddha frequently mentions the importance of taming, training and guarding the self. Here he shows that when the self is well-tamed it brings uncommon benefit.

(Interestingly, "mind" can legitimately replace "self" in the above sentence.)

Elsewhere the Buddha teaches monks to make their selves an island by fulfilling the practice of satipaṭṭhāna - his supreme, one-way path for training the mind.

Literal translation:

attadīpā viharatha attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā

Dwell with the self as an island, the self as a refuge, with no other refuge.

(Mahāparinibbānasutta)

So what we can say for sure is:

1. The Buddha quite often mentioned the self in positive terms, as a thing of great importance that should be trained.

2. That he never once said "there is no self", even when directly asked.

3. That he described the teaching "there is no self" as being on the side of the extreme of annihilationism.

4. That he depicted it as an unbeneficial and confusing teaching.

Thus we can conclude that it would be unwise to assume that he in any way meant for this inference to be drawn from his teaching on not-self.

To draw an inference from the Buddha's teachings where it is unwarranted is, as he himself said, to slander the Tathāgata and generate much demerit.

From the point of view of Classical Theravada the Buddha is speaking conventionally here. On the direct question of self, no-self is annihiltionism if it’s viewed in the sense of an existing Being being destroyed. The Buddha is quite clear that if Vacchagotta hadn’t been liable to such confusion, he would have said there is no self. A true self is an impossible thing.