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?
Problems with no-self
Re: Problems with no-self
- "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.
Re: Problems with no-self
Alex123 wrote:
To put it differently: Why can't one refute anatta as presented in the suttas and commentaries with above 3 arguments?
I feel almost ready to sit in the corner and cry me a river.
http://archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issu ... medho.htmlMost of us are very committed to ourselves as personalities. The habit of viewing ourselves as a person is deeply ingrained in us. In Pali, that is called sakkaya-ditthi, which can be translated as “personality-view” or “the ego.” It means that we regard the five khandhas (groups)—body, feelings, perceptions, conceptions, and consciousness—as belonging to this person, as making up our identity. In investigating the personality-view, we do not grasp on to the perception of “no person” either. It is possible to take the concept of anatta (no self) and grasp that, and say, “There’s no self because the Buddha said there’s anatta!” But in that case we’re still grasping a perception. Grasping a perception of yourself as a nonself gets to be a bit ridiculous.
It is so easy for us to conceive the conditions we attach to. Yet with satipañña (discriminating alertness) and sati-sampajañña (awareness), we begin to awaken ourselves to the way it is, rather than being committed to the conventional realities. I want to emphasize that this awareness is there before you become something. This point cannot be repeated often enough, because even though cultivating awareness might appear very simple on the face of it, our mindset is definitely geared to believing in the personality-view as our fundamental reality. If you grasp on to the conditions you create, you will end up in the same place every time—suffering. But don’t simply believe me; explore it for yourself.
Instead of starting with a perception or a conception of anything, the Buddha established a way based on awareness, or awakened attention. This is an immanent act in the present. It is sati-sampajañña, an intuitive awareness that allows the consciousness to be with the present moment. With this attention, you begin to explore sakkaya-ditthi (personality-view) in terms of the perceptions you attach to as yourself.
"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: Problems with no-self
Person was few seconds old when s/he was born.pegembara wrote:You mean that the 80 year old was really born in 1950?Self that is impermanent (born 1950, died at 2030 for example)?
That same person was 80 year old when s/he died. I understand what you are saying, I used to think like that as well. But river can be the same river even if it has different instances of water flowing through it.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.
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.
Another thing:
That person in 1950 had John and Jane as parents and on birth certificate. And in 2030 his parents (though deceased) are still the same on birth certificate - John and Jane. So origin remains the same.
One has the same increasing "memory bank" and an outside observer could in principle observe physical continuity of the person.
Maybe MN#2 is right. One should reflect in the framework of 4NT, and don't think using philosophical categories such as:"there is...there is no self for me" . Maybe not having a self view means that one doesn't even think "there is no self for me".
Re: Problems with no-self
You.are.free.to.postulate.anything.you.likeAlex123 wrote: 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?
but.will.this.postulation.lead.to.ease.or.to.stress?
I.know.you.have.probably.read.it.before
but.it.might.be.worth.rereading:
"Questions.of.Skill"by.Thanissaro.Bhikkhu
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tions.html
metta
Last edited by manas on Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Re: Problems with no-self
Just because one perceives continuity does not make it a reality. Just because one perceives difference does not make it a reality. Perceptions are just perceptions... anatta.Alex123 wrote:That same person was 80 year old when s/he died. I understand what you are saying, I used to think like that as well. But river can be the same river even if it has different instances of water flowing through it.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Re: Problems with no-self
I have similar understanding to Reflection.reflection wrote: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.
Arhants are free from mental fabrications. Anatta is a mental fabrication (conditioning) .
If we consider Anatta as a fact, fiction, strategy or whatever, it becomes a mental fabrication.
See if this idea you have of the self can also disappear. (let it go)
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Problems with no-self
Alex123 wrote:For example:
Why can't someone postulate:
1) Self that is impermanent (born 1950, died at 2030 for example)?
...
What am I? What does it take for the sense of "I" to appear in my mind? Does this sense feel permanent? Can I rightly postulate that "I am impermanent"? To perceive "I am ..." it takes to perceive an "I" that "is" but in order that an "I" can "be" {this or that} the I has to be permanent because what does not endure cannot "be". But if the I is permanent, does it really feel the same way continuously, does it never disappear the way it feels in one concrete moment? When it appears it feels like permanent in this concrete moment however actually it changes all the time ... from moment to moment, sometimes it fells like this and sometimes like that. How can something be permanent and impermanent at the same time?
What is it? Is it "it" or is it the perception of some "it" ("I"). Since "perception of X" is "perception of {indeterminate phenomenon} as {name, e.g. 'I' or 'mine')" is a consciousness (i.e. cognition) to what extent are consciousness and my determination "I" different? Are they different?
When I will die what will die? The child which is my memory as having been "me" in the past or what?
Re: Problems with no-self
Putting a label John or Jane does not mean that there is really an inherent John/Jane - although useful, it doesn't mean there is a John. If you were to name the baby Bill, the boy Cain, the man John and if he becomes a monk say Kassapa, this would be a little more accurate but this is clearly going to be confusing for people.Alex123 wrote:Person was few seconds old when s/he was born.pegembara wrote:You mean that the 80 year old was really born in 1950?Self that is impermanent (born 1950, died at 2030 for example)?
That same person was 80 year old when s/he died. I understand what you are saying, I used to think like that as well. But river can be the same river even if it has different instances of water flowing through it.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.
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.
Another thing:
That person in 1950 had John and Jane as parents and on birth certificate. And in 2030 his parents (though deceased) are still the same on birth certificate - John and Jane. So origin remains the same.
One has the same increasing "memory bank" and an outside observer could in principle observe physical continuity of the person.
Maybe MN#2 is right. One should reflect in the framework of 4NT, and don't think using philosophical categories such as:"there is...there is no self for me" . Maybe not having a self view means that one doesn't even think "there is no self for me".
You could hold up a piece of paper stating that "you" own this piece of land and "you" pass this property to your children. How could "you" own anything when this land was here long before "you" exist and will still be here long after "you" are gone? All things are impermanent - they are "selfless". If you hold on to them as you or yours, you face disappointment.
MN2 tells you to fake it till you make it - not self strategy.
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention.'
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
Why does one want to refute it?Alex123 wrote:Why shouldn't someone postulate all this?Alex123 wrote: 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?
To put it differently: Why can't one refute anatta as presented in the suttas and commentaries with above 3 arguments?
Do you know?
What do you hope to accomplish by pondering possible refutations of statements in some old scriptures?
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. [/quote]Alex123 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.
If death (as is usually thought of in secular Western culture) means the end of suffering - you will not experience the end of suffering. So relying on death to end your suffering is futile.
That may simply have to do with the quality of your thoughts, rather than anything else!Reflecting on my experience, the best time of my life is when I am totally asleep and don't cognize anything at all.
The problem with asserting a self-view ("I am this," I am not," "I have a self" "I have no self") is that it cannot be evidenced by oneself to oneself (because for all practical intents and purposes, one cannot evidence that one actually is or isn't this or that) and that it limits the scope of one's actions, sometimes in ways that sooner or later turn out to be harmful.Alex123 wrote:Maybe MN#2 is right. One should reflect in the framework of 4NT, and don't think using philosophical categories such as:"there is...there is no self for me" . Maybe not having a self view means that one doesn't even think "there is no self for me".
IOW, whatever one happens to assert as "my self," there are going to be some problems with it down the line.
That doesn't mean that there is no self; just that whatever one (a run-of-the-mill person) happens to assert as one's self, is likely going to turn out problematic sooner or later.
Here are two talks by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on the problems of "Buddha nature" and on asserting a self-view in general:
Freedom From Buddha Nature
What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Problems with no-self
How can one observe anything without arguments?ground wrote: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?
Can one observe a quark? Yes, one can, if one first educates oneself about quarks and how they are to be perceived. When it comes to the things that science deals with, we tend to readily acknowledge that in order to see something, we have to operate out of a particular theoretical and practical framework. But we generally don't seem to have that tendency when it comes to seeing things about ourselves. Those we tend to take for granted.
Not necessarily. The sense of permanence, surety can be connected to sadness, or anger, for example. It's typical to feel very confident, very sure, very rational when angry. Sadness also carries with it a sense of surety, of finality, a sense of "things just have to be this way. " When the anger or sadness pass, so does the sense of surety.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.
I don't think it is possible to perceive the self. One cannot see what it is that one is seeing with.ground wrote:What am I? What does it take for the sense of "I" to appear in my mind? Does this sense feel permanent? Can I rightly postulate that "I am impermanent"? To perceive "I am ..." it takes to perceive an "I" that "is" but in order that an "I" can "be" {this or that} the I has to be permanent because what does not endure cannot "be". But if the I is permanent, does it really feel the same way continuously, does it never disappear the way it feels in one concrete moment? When it appears it feels like permanent in this concrete moment however actually it changes all the time ... from moment to moment, sometimes it fells like this and sometimes like that. How can something be permanent and impermanent at the same time?
What is it? Is it "it" or is it the perception of some "it" ("I"). Since "perception of X" is "perception of {indeterminate phenomenon} as {name, e.g. 'I' or 'mine')" is a consciousness (i.e. cognition) to what extent are consciousness and my determination "I" different? Are they different?
When I will die what will die? The child which is my memory as having been "me" in the past or what?
However, views about the self are relevant inasmuch as they can be related to how a person acts, ie. for a person's justifications for their actions.
E.g.
"I am an ugly, lowly person, therefore, it doesn't really matter how I spend my time."
"I am a child of God, and therefore, other people owe me special respect."
etc. etc.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Problems with no-self
I think the idea of no-self (as promoted by some Buddhists) is really just sophisticated nihilism.alan wrote: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.
At first, I was in favor of the no-self idea. But after a while, I came to notice that the no-self folks struck me as a lot more angry and miserable than those with the not-self idea.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!