...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

[hgg]

Hello to all,

"Material form monks, is impermanent. Whatever is impermanent, that is unsatisfactory.
What is unsatisfactory, that is not self. What is not self, should be regarded, 'This is not
mine, I am not this, this is not my self.' One should discern it as it really is through perfect
wisdom." - S.iii.21

ok,
- "Material form monks, is impermanent"
I understand that.
- "Whatever is impermanent, that is unsatisfactory"
This also.
- "What is not self, should be regarded, 'This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self"
I think I understand that as well,

but the statement "What is unsatisfactory, that is not self", that I cannot understand.

Does it mean that if there was a self, then that would be satisfactory, or,
if there was something satisfactory, then that could be self ?
How can he go from a to b, meaning that anything that is unsatisfactory, that is not self?
Is there any logical or empirical explanation to reach that conclusion ?

I cannot really understand that statement. I hope somebody can shed some light.
Thank you.
George.

[reflection]

Hi,

If there was a self, there would be self control. With self control there would be the creation of something satisfying. Who would with self control choose to suffer? For an example, who would choose for his or her body to get sick? Who chooses to become sad or depressed? Nobody would. But it still happens because it is not under our control. We can't choose our body (form), our perceptions, thoughts, etc.

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

(same for the other aggregates)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

It does not mean that if there is something satisfactory that would be a self. Because if there were a self, that satisfactory thing would always be there and unsatisfying things would not arise. Obvious from our experience, this is not the case. That's also why it speaks of impermanence.

Hope this helps,

[hgg]

Hello reflection,

At a first glance what you say makes sense, but now you have introduced another assumption.

If there was a self, there would be self control

This assumption needs a definition for the term self and for what is satisfactory.
What is satisfactory? Everything permanent or whatever does not cause aversion?
Does a permanent self imply full self control?
Can't we have a self with partial self control?

Then again we can fall into another trap, because the word control implies motion and
whatever contains motion cannot be permanent.

[reflection]

Here I 'defined' self as something that has control over itself. But then this doesn't exist, that's important to note. Another way of defining self (aka soul or ego) is something that is permanent in our experience or a center everything revolves around. But 'self' is not just an intellectual or philosophical idea. It is mainly a construct or feeling most people experience, around which they live their lives. This is the mind tricking itself and it can be very subtle in this, it can construct a 'self-image' in various ways: "I have freedom to choose", "I am aware", "This body is mine", things like that and also more subtle. So there is not a very fixed definition I would say.

Therefore, when the Buddha taught about 'self' you always have to see it in the context of no-self, that there is no permanence/center of control in us, in the five aggregates. And when he defined the self in a certain way, he was addressing one of the grounds on which this 'self-image' arises in people, not implying to make a fixed definition of self.

[lyndon taylor]

I think if the buddha actually believed there was absolutely no self of any kind, he would have said so quite plainly, If there really was absolutely no self, why didn't he just say straight up, there is absolutely no self of any kind, instead he went to all this trouble to show us what all the fake counterfit selves were, by saying what you see is not your self, what you hear is not your self, what you feel, smell, taste is not your self, your senses are not your self, your physical body is not your self, your random everyday thoughts are not your self, but he never said there is nothing that is your self, and obviously if he really believed there was no kind of self he would have said so, instead of going to so much trouble to point out what we might think are fake or counterfit selves, there are plenty of scriptural references to what the self is, it is permanent, it is the "buddha nature", it is the good inside us, but they are mostly mahayana in transmission, but even in Therevada, there is no complete denial of any kind of self being real.

[daverupa]

It's a matter of definitions: since a self is, by definition, satisfactory unto itself, then that which is unsatisfactory cannot be a self. Yellow cannot be purple.

It's holding the ancient Indian ideations about self in mind, and not necessarily Western ideas about it, which helps things to fall into place.

[hgg]

So reflection, by your definition,

if self is something that has control over itself (which also contains a circular reference: "itself")
then by having control, you have motion/change. Having change you have impermanence, having
impermanence you have unsatisfactoriness and the statement:

"What is unsatisfactory, that is not self" becomes --> What is unsatisfactory, that is not unsatisfactory.

[reflection]

So reflection, by your definition,

if self is something that has control over itself (which also contains a circular reference: "itself")
then by having control, you have motion/change. Having change you have impermanence, having
impermanence you have unsatisfactoriness and the statement:

"What is unsatisfactory, that is not self" becomes --> What is unsatisfactory, that is not unsatisfactory.

My argument was that 'self' is not really a definition or to be defined. In its defining you sort of assume its existence, which makes for loops like this. Instead 'self' is a view, a way of looking at things, based on wrong perceptions. I think you are getting too far into an intellectual exercise here that misses this point.

That aside, having control doesn't imply change. You would choose to always be happy, for example, and not change it to unhappiness. You would be healthy and not sick. You would stay alive and not die.

[hgg]

Your argument was that
"if there was a self", then "there would be the creation of something satisfying" (because of self control)

That is not necessarily true for two reasons.
1st. There could also be the creation of something neutral.
2nd. Having self control does not imply satisfactoriness because control implies impermanence.
"You would choose to always be happy".
By the time you chose, you have already accepted a change which means impermanence.

So I think that my initial question remains: "What is unsatisfactory, that is not self". Why ?

[reflection]

You really have to use the teachings as a layover to your own experiences and assumptions to understand them. And then with a mind free from the hindrances, free from distracting thoughts. From an intellectual point of view you will not get what they are saying; that no self, impermanence and suffering/unsatisfactoriness are the same thing effectively.

[mal4mac]

Hi,

If there was a self, there would be self control.

How does that follow? The self might be trapped in a mind that controls the self, like a bad king might totally control a good princes, whose path (say) is to help the poor, by keeping her permanently under lock & key.

[reflection]

Self as having self control is just one way of constructing a self view. A quite common one that is, seeing how many people think they have freedom of choice or are in charge of their body. But it is not the only way of self view. What you propose would be another type of self view, like the self in consciousness for example.

[hgg]

It seems to me that the statement "what is unsatisfactory, that is not self" might make sense
if we assume that Buddha actually believed that there is some kind of a self but definitely not
what we experience and think in our everyday life.

I would have to agree with what lyndon taylor said.

If that is true, then the above statement might make sense because the real self is in no way
something unsatisfactory. (or it should be... We will have to take Buddha's words for granted,
on that, because who knows if the real self is really something satisfactory?)

I think that the self in samsara is something like a spiral, that is never ever the same with itself,
it does not have an identity but is something that is continuously changing keeping track of the
changes, like a stream or a river in which while the water is never the same, it has boundaries
and follows a path. If that is not true then how can anybody recall previous births of the same
"spiral"? There should be some kind of connection.

After Nibbana maybe this "spiral" self dissolves into something beyond words.

[mal4mac]

It's a matter of definitions: since a self is, by definition, satisfactory unto itself, then that which is unsatisfactory cannot be a self. Yellow cannot be purple.

Thanks, that's a good explanation.

[hgg]

"since a self is, by definition, satisfactory unto itself,"

But who defined that?