Problems with no-self

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by Alex123 »

binocular wrote:Why does one want to refute it?...
What do you hope to accomplish by pondering possible refutations of statements in some old scriptures?
To test the validity of an idea, it can be a good thing to try to refute it and see how it stands to scrutiny. This is especially true when some use this idea to affect their practice. Ex: "Since there is no self... you can't practice because there is no "you" to practice, and if you do try to "control", then just more self views are built up and maggaphala is further and further away. etc etc"
binocular wrote: 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.
Do you think Buddhist idea of parinibbāna is some indescribable eternal consciousness that somehow enjoys parinibbāna?

Absence of experience = total peace. No observer. Years ago I used to have problems with the idea of final end thinking
"What is the point of practice just to cease forever?" Now I think that even one life is too much.
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by Polar Bear »

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by Alex123 »

Hello Polarbuddha,
polarbuddha101 wrote:You may want to read this
Thanks for the suggestion. Yeh, I remember that sense of self is by product of the brain, perhaps for survival purposes so that one could pass on one's genes.
I agree with that.
5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by 5heaps »

Alex123 wrote:Why can't we say that Self has the body, feelings, etc which change? Even though these change, it is still the same person. Jack doesn't become John the next moment, Jane the third moment and Andrew the fourth moment. There is continuity of person from cradle to grave even though body and specific mental states do change.
because then you are asserting a person who is independent of its parts. in other words you are asserting a self to persons. you are asserting that what identifies a person as being a person is the characteristic of self in them. without that essential nature that endures over time, one could not rationally posit "Alex123" today and tomorrow.

the task is to resolve how we are one person from birth to death, which is correct, yet at the same time we are not independent of our constantly changing parts.

nor are we precisely equivalent to them. when this is understood cause and effect is understood. when cause and effect is understood disintegration is understood. when they are understood, the tendency to assent to faulty appearances dissolves. when assenting to faulty appearances dissolves, all the suffering which was hinges on those faulty appearances (ie. 99% of our suffering) falls away since it has nothing to hinge on. etc.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by Alex123 »

5heaps wrote:because then you are asserting a person who is independent of its parts. in other words you are asserting a self to persons.
Why can't one posit a self (in a sense of empiric person such as: John or Jack) that cannot be without its parts, but its parts can change like parts of a river.

John doesn't become Jack, and Jack doesn't become John.

But of course, self is probably a delusion of the individual brain & body in order to survive in the world, to reproduce and for survival the species.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by reflection »

There is the same person, but you shouldn't see a person as a thing. It's a process. Liken it to a song: the notes fade in and out, but still there is a continuity there that is not a "thing". A song is not a thing, it is just a collection of notes. We call it a song, and give it a name, simply because that is useful on a conventional level. If I say I want to listen to Beat It, well, you know what song I mean.

If I call somebody John, that's useful because you know what person I mean. But in the process "John", nothing is constant. You could call the person a "self", and you could have a point, but that's all on the conventional level. In reality there are no concepts, so self and not self don't really apply. We can only see that there is a construction of what we take ourselves to be. With meditation a lot of people shave off a lot of this, making it smaller. The Buddha wanted us to see we are shaving something which has no core. Like taking layers of an onion. You can keep going and nothing is left. You may be stuck on a certain layer right now, and that's ok, but if you keep following the path, you'll find a way to peel it I'm sure.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by pegembara »

Why can't one posit a self (in a sense of empiric person such as: John or Jack) that cannot be without its parts, but its parts can change like parts of a river.

John doesn't become Jack, and Jack doesn't become John.

There is no person, only skin, liver, lungs, arms, legs, brain put together in a certain way. The liver is not a person. There is no liver in fact. The individual cells which make up the liver is not the liver. See what I am getting at.
Another approach to the understanding of death is through an understanding of the law of aggregates or Sankharas which states that everything is a combination of things and does not exist by itself as an independent entity. "Sankhara" is a Pali term used for an aggregation, a combination, or an assemblage. The word, is derived from the prefix san meaning "together" and the root kar meaning "to make." The two together mean "made together" or "constructed together" or "combined together." "All things in this world," says the Buddha, "are aggregates or combinations." That is to say, they do not exist by themselves, but are composed of several things. Any one thing, be it a mighty mountain or a minute mustard seed, is a combination of several things. These things are themselves combinations of several other things. Nothing is a unity, nothing is an entity, large or small. Neither is the sun nor moon an entity, nor is the smallest grain of sand an entity. Each of them is a Sankhara, a combination of several things. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el102.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by ground »

binocular wrote:
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?
How can one observe anything without arguments?

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.
If you postulate "sweet" 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?
binocular wrote:
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.
Not necessarily.
Sorry but the question has its context and was adressed to another person.
binocular wrote: The sense of permanence, surety can be connected to sadness,
Also please read carefully. "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? " If you cannot recognize the basis (first question) then it is useless to consider the next questions.
binocular wrote:
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?
I don't think it is possible to perceive the self.
Try the sense of "I" and "mine" as suggested here. You have perceived it right now but probably it has gone unnoticed like so many times before. :sage:
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by binocular »

Alex123 wrote:
binocular wrote:Why does one want to refute it?...
What do you hope to accomplish by pondering possible refutations of statements in some old scriptures?
To test the validity of an idea, it can be a good thing to try to refute it and see how it stands to scrutiny.
To test it by what criteria?

This is especially true when some use this idea to affect their practice. Ex: "Since there is no self... you can't practice because there is no "you" to practice, and if you do try to "control", then just more self views are built up and maggaphala is further and further away. etc etc"
Sure.

Do you think Buddhist idea of parinibbāna is some indescribable eternal consciousness that somehow enjoys parinibbāna?


I don't have any particular opinion on this.

Absence of experience = total peace.
No. For there to be "total peace," there'd still need to be the presence of experience, in order to experience this total peace.
Otherwise, "total peace" does not apply.

No observer.
That is the view is a kind of annihilationism.

Similar to Pakudha Kaccayana's pernicious view:
"'And among them there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer nor one who causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When one cuts off [another person's] head, there is no one taking anyone's life. It is simply between the seven substances that the sword passes.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Now I think that even one life is too much.
Wasting even just one lifetime, even just one minute, is too much.

Alex123 wrote:Thanks for the suggestion. Yeh, I remember that sense of self is by product of the brain, perhaps for survival purposes so that one could pass on one's genes.
I agree with that.
That's some considerable faith in science.
Last edited by binocular on Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by binocular »

ground wrote:If you postulate "sweet" 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?
To call something "sweet" is something I've learned; it's not my direct experience. The direct experience of tasting sugar has no verbal name.
For a typical Westerner, sugar and ripe bananas both have a similar component of taste, namely that which we call "sweet." Someone from a different culture, however, might not experience-classify it that way. A good example for such culturally conditioned specifics is the color vocabulary. What some people call "blue," others call "green," etc.
This, too, suggests that our observations-preceptions are not direct, but take place in accordance with particular paradigms that are specific to the culture or one's individuality.

And it appears you didn't read my comment:
How can one observe anything without arguments?
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.


Try the sense of "I" and "mine" as suggested here. You have perceived it right now but probably it has gone unnoticed like so many times before.
I'm quite sure that if you had, say, a Hindu background, you'd conceptualize all this very differently.

:sage:
Uh. :o
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by ground »

binocular wrote:
ground wrote:If you postulate "sweet" 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?
To call something "sweet" is something I've learned; it's not my direct experience. The direct experience of tasting sugar has no verbal name.
Direct experience or not, if you postulate "sweet" you should know what you are talking about. " sweet" has been applied to illustrate was has been said in the context of "self" and "no-self".

binocular wrote: And it appears you didn't read my comment:
How can one observe anything without arguments?
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.
I have read it, however:
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?
binocular wrote:
Try the sense of "I" and "mine" as suggested here. You have perceived it right now but probably it has gone unnoticed like so many times before.
I'm quite sure that if you had, say, a Hindu background, you'd conceptualize all this very differently.
Whatever background there may be or not be there is nothing conceptualized here but there is something being expressed. :sage:
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by binocular »

ground wrote:Direct experience or not, if you postulate "sweet" you should know what you are talking about. " sweet" has been applied to illustrate was has been said in the context of "self" and "no-self".
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?
How can one exprience something if one doesn't have an idea about what it - supposedly - is?

If I were to request you to take an apple out of the fruit basket: how could you do it, unless you have first learned what an apple is?

Whatever background there may be or not be there is nothing conceptualized here but there is something being expressed.
I guess I don't share your faith, or conviction, or certainty in direct experience.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by ground »

binocular wrote:
ground wrote:Direct experience or not, if you postulate "sweet" you should know what you are talking about. " sweet" has been applied to illustrate was has been said in the context of "self" and "no-self".
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?
How can one exprience something if one doesn't have an idea about what it - supposedly - is?
But that is not the point here in this context. Having not experienced dependent origination of what is called "self" you still may think about or discuss about "self" endlessly. But all you are thinking and discussing about are just abstractions of wavering thoughts. That is why it has been said that one should know what one is talking about and "You should know your experience and how can you know by means of arguments instead of observation?" :sage:
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by Alex123 »

binocular wrote:To test it by what criteria?
How it stands up to current empiric observation.
Check internal logical consistency.
binocular wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Thanks for the suggestion. Yeh, I remember that sense of self is by product of the brain, perhaps for survival purposes so that one could pass on one's genes.
I agree with that.
That's some considerable faith in science.
Science operates by facts and evidence. Religious faith says "believe us" and provides no solid logic and evidence.
5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: Problems with no-self

Post by 5heaps »

Alex123 wrote:
5heaps wrote:because then you are asserting a person who is independent of its parts. in other words you are asserting a self to persons.
Why can't one posit a self (in a sense of empiric person such as: John or Jack) that cannot be without its parts, but its parts can change like parts of a river.
if the person is equivalent to the parts then since those parts are momentary (ie. they cannot magically endure into a second moment) the person too must end at that time

thats one of the main reasons why the buddha explained that the person is neither the same as the aggregates nor different than the aggregates.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
Post Reply