NO self

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: NO self

Post by danieLion » Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:21 am

If the Buddha taught "NO self," why did he instruct bhikkhus to make themselves their governing principle (AN 3.40, Adhipateyya Sutta) and be islands unto themselves (SN 22.43, Attadiipaa Sutta)?

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: NO self

Post by Nyana » Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:30 am

danieLion wrote:If the Buddha taught "NO self," why did he instruct bhikkhus to make themselves their governing principle (AN 3.40, Adhipateyya Sutta) and be islands unto themselves (SN 22.43, Attadiipaa Sutta)?
What the recognition of anatta negates is a permanent, unchanging Self. This recognition doesn't preclude the use of pronouns as expedient conventional expressions.

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: NO self

Post by danieLion » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:15 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:
danieLion wrote:If the Buddha taught "NO self," why did he instruct bhikkhus to make themselves their governing principle (AN 3.40, Adhipateyya Sutta) and be islands unto themselves (SN 22.43, Attadiipaa Sutta)?
What the recognition of anatta negates is a permanent, unchanging Self. This recognition doesn't preclude the use of pronouns as expedient conventional expressions.
Yes, I' made this point above. This is a further point. The contexts of these passages do not indicate that the Buddha was instructing these bhikkhus in any kind of expedient-conventional-expression way. These are formal instructions.

Having a sense of self and a healthy ego is necessary on the path.

All this adds up to: the Buddha didn't teach "NO self."

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: NO self

Post by Nyana » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:23 pm

danieLion wrote:The contexts of these passages do not indicate that the Buddha was instructing these bhikkhus in any kind of expedient-conventional-expression way. These are formal instructions.
All instructions are expedient conventional expressions.
danieLion wrote:Having a sense of self and a healthy ego is necessary on the path.
Right. The ego isn't what is being negated by the recognition of anatta. Hence, Jack Engler's phrase: "You have to be somebody before you can be nobody."

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: NO self

Post by danieLion » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:40 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:
danieLion wrote:The contexts of these passages do not indicate that the Buddha was instructing these bhikkhus in any kind of expedient-conventional-expression way. These are formal instructions.
All instructions are expedient conventional expressions.
I stand corrected and defer to your knoweldge.
danieLion wrote:Having a sense of self and a healthy ego is necessary on the path.
Ñāṇa wrote:Right. The ego isn't what is being negated by the recognition of anatta. Hence, Jack Engler's phrase: "You have to be somebody before you can be nobody."
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any way of having a sense of self and a healthy ego if I believe the Buddha taught "NO self."

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: NO self

Post by Nyana » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:55 pm

danieLion wrote:Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any way of having a sense of self and a healthy ego if I believe the Buddha taught "NO self."
Anatta has been misrepresented both in the direction of over-negation and in the opposite direction of under-negation. Again, anatta negates a permanent, unchanging Self, not the impermanent, changeable, developmental self-structure that is a necessary part of healthy psychological development. No aspect of this latter developmental structure is a permanent unchanging Self. Therefore, no part of it should be grasped at or clung to as a means of salvation.

User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: NO self

Post by DAWN » Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:48 pm

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi translate anatta like "noself".

If we watch in the past there is conditioned "noself".
If we wath in the very present moment, at the very border of reality, there is "no self" at all.

If i see it rightly. :thinking:

Anyway it's a void discussion, IMO. :zzz:

Friendly :anjali:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: NO self

Post by danieLion » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:03 am

Ñāṇa wrote:No aspect of this latter developmental structure is a permanent unchanging Self. Therefore, no part of it should be grasped at or clung to as a means of salvation.
Right. Grasping and clinging are signs of a sickly functioning ego. The psychologically healthy self-structure knows it's neither permanent nor unchanging.

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: NO self

Post by danieLion » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:10 am

DAWN wrote:Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi translate anatta like "noself".
Where?
In my copies of the Majjhima Nikaya (MN) and the Samyutta Nikaya it's rendered "non self" (and listed in the subject index of MN as "not self").

User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: NO self

Post by DAWN » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:22 am

danieLion wrote:
DAWN wrote:Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi translate anatta like "noself".
Where?
In my copies of the Majjhima Nikaya (MN) and the Samyutta Nikaya it's rendered "non self" (and listed in the subject index of MN as "not self").
Good question !

I hope i make not mistake, and this "noself" apear in SN of Ven. Bidhi, at non en DN of M.Walshe. :thinking:

I will try to find it. :reading:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: NO self

Post by DAWN » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:30 am

Find !

SN 35.1 p.1133

"Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this is I am not, this is not my self. "


I dont know if it's change something (actualy i'am not sure that this debate about 'no self' or 'not self' or 'notself' or 'nonself' can change the practice), but my mind have catched this 'nonself' (actualy i mistake, first time i wrote NOself, and not NONself), so i post it this. :thinking:

Friendly :namaste:
Last edited by DAWN on Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: NO self

Post by Nyana » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:34 am

danieLion wrote:The psychologically healthy self-structure knows it's neither permanent nor unchanging.
Well, I'm not so sure of that. Worldlings can be "psychologically healthy" by societal standards, yet still hold any number of different identity views that are rejected in the Nikāyas, including views of a permanent unchanging self or soul. A stream entrant, on the other hand, has abandoned identity views, yet still has the underlying tendency of "I am."

Another point you mentioned previously about your concerns regarding "no self": The psychological self-structure doesn't fill the criteria of a "self" in the Nikāyas, therefore I think it's fine to say that the Buddha taught that there is no self. The only caveat I would add is that this isn't something to be dogmatically clung to either.

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: NO self

Post by danieLion » Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:03 am

DAWN wrote:Find !

SN 35.1 p.1133

"Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this is I am not, this is not my self. "


I dont know if it's change something (actualy i'am not sure that this debate about 'no self' or 'not self' or 'notself' or 'nonself' can change the practice), but my mind have catched this 'nonself' (actualy i mistake, first time i wrote NOself, and not NONself), so i post it this. :thinking:

Friendly :namaste:
It's okay. I get confused too, like right now, absorbing Nana's last post. And for all I know, Rev. Bodhi has translated it "no self" somewhere.

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: NO self

Post by danieLion » Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:08 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
danieLion wrote:The psychologically healthy self-structure knows it's neither permanent nor unchanging.
Well, I'm not so sure of that. Worldlings can be "psychologically healthy" by societal standards, yet still hold any number of different identity views that are rejected in the Nikāyas, including views of a permanent unchanging self or soul. A stream entrant, on the other hand, has abandoned identity views, yet still has the underlying tendency of "I am."

Another point you mentioned previously about your concerns regarding "no self": The psychological self-structure doesn't fill the criteria of a "self" in the Nikāyas, therefore I think it's fine to say that the Buddha taught that there is no self. The only caveat I would add is that this isn't something to be dogmatically clung to either.
By the criteria in the Nikayas you mean a "self" as the aggregates, right?

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: NO self

Post by Nyana » Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:04 pm

danieLion wrote:By the criteria in the Nikayas you mean a "self" as the aggregates, right?
I mean a self that would be:

1. not prone to dis-ease
2. fully self-determining (be in complete autonomous control of itself)
3. permanent
4. satisfactory

These four criteria can easily be inferred from the dialogue in SN 22.59.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests