Thanks. This is the atman of the brahmins, right? Do you know of any descriptions of or research on Ātmavāda online?Ñāṇa wrote:Most of the Indian philosophical schools are considered Ātmavāda, except the Buddhists and the materialists. That is, all of the others schools posit a existent self (i.e. soul).danieLion wrote:I've never had a doctrine of self. Guess I was born without one. I'm astonished anyone would have a doctrine of self.
NO self
Re: NO self
Re: NO self
Not just the Brahmins, the Jains and others as well.danieLion wrote:This is the atman of the brahmins, right?
The Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha is a 14th century compendium of Indian philosophical schools (Buddhism is #2) written by a Vedānta author. The translation is dated but it's of some interest if you like reading dusty old books. There are probably other sources online that are easier to read and understand but I don't know of any.danieLion wrote:Do you know of any descriptions of or research on Ātmavāda online?
Re: NO self
I can see some parallels in the suttas, but I am not too fussed either way. I would be worried if I saw a contradiction but whether due to my bias or because there isn't any, I am not worried. Misunderstood, yes, all sorts of aspects of the Dhamma can and do get misunderstood.tiltbillings wrote:But it is not what the suttas teach, and it is language that is all too easily misunderstood.Dan74 wrote:Many Mahayana and Theravada masters when they talk about the self, the mind, the Unborn, etc etc don't seem to mean something personal, some unchanging essence of an individual, but rather the unconditioned uncaused undisturbed is-ness that is all-pervading and immanent in all ever-changing phenomena. This is-ness, this permanent radiant perfect self is no-self in that it is entirely non-personal, not something to possess or attain, but rather what manifests when the obscurations/defilements/delusion are seen through for the mirages that they are and when the clinging and the identifications are let gone of.
Well spotted! But three negatives should make a positive, no?alan wrote:Plus, Dan, you used three negatives in a sentence trying to prove an assertion. That never works.
Although I was not out to prove any assertions!
Ñāṇa wrote:It's not a description of nibbāna.Dan74 wrote:It is in fact nothing but a description of nibbana and an encouragement to realize it here and now because it is nowhere else.
Dan wrote: Why not? What is it a description of then?
Right and how does this support your point?Ñāṇa wrote: Nibbāna means extinguishment and refers to the elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion. The same meaning can be found in Mahāyāna sources.
Did I? I'm lost now.Ñāṇa wrote:Well, you're the one who said there is a "self that is affirmed."Dan74 wrote:There is no concept of transcendent self-nature in Mahayana and I am surprised that a learned person like yourself would even posit such a straw-man.
Indeed. But this elimination is by seeing through its empty dependently arisen nature. In other words is a mirage (cf Sutra of Complete Enlightenment).Ñāṇa wrote:Actually, even in the Mahāyāna systems delusion has to be eliminated. There is no fruition of buddhahood without such elimination.Dan74 wrote:Transcend what? Not even delusion is transcended but seen through as a mirage that it is.
Thanks.Ñāṇa wrote:Here, the reference was to innate (connate, co-emergent) awareness (i.e. sahajajñāna) that is always present in the mental continuum, and related ideas from tathāgatagarbha sources.Dan74 wrote:As for innate self-nature, this is not there either, why would it be innate? This is Emerson, not Mahayana.
[/quote]Ñāṇa wrote:Yes, there's a lot that could be said on this subject (but this forum isn't the proper place for it). At any rate, the main Indian Mahāyāna versions of Buddhist hermeneutics treat negations as definitive and affirmations as conventional and provisional.Dan74 wrote:So I am still left wondering if what is being refuted has any bearing on what appears to be affirmed. All these seeming affirmations are provisional after all and are refuted when appropriate.
Seeing that this thread is in Open Dhamma and it touches on the concept that are common in Mahayana I thought a clarification of what was it that was being asserted and what was it that was being denied would help. But in any case negations at least as far as non-abiding is fundamental as far as I have been taught.
That said I don't think that in our rush to distinguish ourselves from the Hindus we should jump on teachings which describe the liberation in terms like the ones I mentioned. We do not seek atman, nor do we seek to rest in any such state. Liberation from delusion is common to all schools.
Chownah - I completely agree - to conceptualize a doctrine of self is a pretty futile effort, IMO. And I don't think any schools do this, but I could be wrong.
_/|\_
Re: NO self
Because liberation in this sense has little concern with "the unconditioned uncaused undisturbed is-ness that is all-pervading and immanent in all ever-changing phenomena." That is quite irrelevant. Oceanic samādhi type experiences can be interesting, even transformative to varying degrees, but from the perspective of the pre-Mahāyāna teachings that isn't the main point.Dan74 wrote:Right and how does this support your point?Ñāṇa wrote: Nibbāna means extinguishment and refers to the elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion. The same meaning can be found in Mahāyāna sources.
Re: NO self
Do you think Mahayana mistakes oceanic samadhi for nirvana?Ñāṇa wrote:Because liberation in this sense has little concern with "the unconditioned uncaused undisturbed is-ness that is all-pervading and immanent in all ever-changing phenomena." That is quite irrelevant. Oceanic samādhi type experiences can be interesting, even transformative to varying degrees, but from the perspective of the pre-Mahāyāna teachings that isn't the main point.Dan74 wrote:Right and how does this support your point?Ñāṇa wrote: Nibbāna means extinguishment and refers to the elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion. The same meaning can be found in Mahāyāna sources.
_/|\_
Re: NO self
Well, there are a number of different Mahāyāna traditions so it's important to not generalize too much. But I don't think that this is the case with the traditions that I'm most familiar with.Dan74 wrote:Do you think Mahayana mistakes oceanic samadhi for nirvana?
Re: NO self
This topic is one of the most overused and overly boring of all time. Everyone just clings to their own opinions.
Snooze!
If it's not in the suttas, discuss it on another site.
Snooze!
If it's not in the suttas, discuss it on another site.
Re: NO self
alan wrote:This topic is one of the most overused and overly boring of all time. Everyone just clings to their own opinions.
Snooze!
If it's not in the suttas, discuss it on another site.
_/|\_
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2177
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: NO self
robertk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:20 am...From Dhammanando:
First I cite seven translations of it:
Dhammanando:
"...since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self..."
Ñāṇamoli/Bodhi:
"...since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established..."
Thanissaro:
"...where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality..."
B.C. Law:
"...But both soul and that which belongs to soul being in truth, and forever, impossible to be known..."
I.B. Horner:
"But if Self and what belongs to Self, although actually existing are incomprehensible..."
Mahāmakut Tipiṭaka:
"...meua attā lae borikhān neuang duai attā bukkhon theu ao mai dai, doey khwām pen khong jing, doey khwām pen khong thae..."
Mahāchulalongkorn Tipiṭaka:
"...meua thang ton lae khong thii neuang kap ton ja yang hen mai dai, doey khwām pen khong jing, doey khwām pen khong thae..."
Then my comments:
Of the seven renderings above, those of Horner and Law are completely off the map, while the remaining five are more or less defensible so far as purely philological considerations go.
- It is unsurprising that IB Horner happened to be a Selfer when her mentor Caroline Rhys Davids was coming out as a Souler at last.
Here are a couple more of the on-the-map ones
- Bhikkhu Sujato
... a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found ...
- Ven. Nanananda's unequivocal stance (or rather, another nail in the coffin of "Self/Soul") regarding that point on MN. 22:
... "The Buddha had unequivocally declared that the idea of soul is the outcome of an utterly foolish view," ...
- Bhikkhu Sujato
- Regarding "more or less defensible-ness":
- Even based solely upon that "Self" issue in MN 22, I would say that "There is no Self", because it is not an everyday run-off-the-mill person; It is the Buddha Himself who said:
- "...since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self..." (Ven Dhammanando)
- "...since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established..." (Bk. Ñāṇamoli/Bk. Bodhi)
- "...where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality..." (Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
- "... a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found ..." Bhikkhu Sujato
- not apprehended as true and established
- not pinned down as a truth or reality
- not actually found
- I would gladly say: ... There must not be "Self".
- And, it is very appropriate to say that:
- Even based solely upon that "Self" issue in MN 22, I would say that "There is no Self", because it is not an everyday run-off-the-mill person; It is the Buddha Himself who said:
Last edited by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta on Tue Feb 27, 2024 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: NO self
I edited your post to make the section I quoted from Dhammanando clear.
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2177
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: NO self
I also fixed the second quote.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: NO self
You are generalizing too much and end up being a noselfer.Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 6:40 am Even based solely upon that "Self" issue in MN 22, I would say that "There is no Self", because it is not an everyday run-off-the-mill person; It is the Buddha Himself who said:
"...since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self..." (Ven Dhammanando)
"...since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established..." (Bk. Ñāṇamoli/Bk. Bodhi)
"...where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality..." (Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
"... a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found ..." Bhikkhu Sujato
The totally foolish teaching is cosmos and self are one and the same. After death i will be permanent, everlasting..
In same sutta the not belonging to the self part,https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: “But since a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found, is not the following a totally foolish teaching:
‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever’?”
And the self part is that the others are not self,wrote: And what isn’t yours?
Kiñca, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ?
Form isn’t yours: give it up.
Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ, taṁ pajahatha;
above says:" to us that's neither self nor belonging to self". Same way also the cosmos is not self. Cosmos doesn't carry you, nor are you in the cosmos.wrote:Suppose a person was to carry off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves in this Jeta’s Grove, or burn them, or do what they want with them.
Would you think,
‘This person is carrying us off, burning us, or doing what they want with us’?”
“No, sir.
Why is that?
Because to us that’s neither self nor belonging to self.”
Actually it seem by us/self he means grass/form. So, the self the buddha is talking about is form.
More options in mn44,
They don’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2177
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: NO self
Thanks for discussion
So, for this post, "totally foolish teaching" will not be focused upon. The post will just be about (1) Very clear "There is No Self" message of Buddha found in MN 22; and (2) IB Horner's unbelievably and jaw-droppingly straightforward fusion of "Self is actually existing" paradigm right into this very sutta translation.
(1)
"There is No Self" message of Buddha found in MN 22
- Bk. Bodhi
“Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be for me what belongs to a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Or, there being what belongs to a self, would there be for me a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”
Bk Sujato
Mendicants, were a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘Belonging to my self’?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Were what belongs to a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘My self’?”
“Yes, sir.”
“But since a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found, is not the following a totally foolish teaching: ‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever’?”
“How could it not, sir? It’s a totally foolish teaching.”
Suddhāso Bhikkhu
“Monks, if a self existed, would there be the concept ‘belongs to my self’?
“Yes, Bhante.”
“Monks, if ‘belongs to my self’ existed, would there be the concept ‘my self’?”
“Yes, Bhante.”
“Monks, since one cannot arrive at ‘self’ or ‘belongs to self’ as true and reliable, then isn‘t the viewpoint ‘The world is the self, and after death I will be permanent, stable, eternal, unchanging, and will remain that way forever’ utterly and completely foolish?”
“How could it not be, Bhante? Bhante, it is utterly and completely foolish.”
Nyanaponika Thera
"If there were a self, monks, would there be my self's property?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Or if there is a self's property, would there by my self?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Since in truth and in fact, self and self's property do not obtain, O monks, then this ground for views, 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide, in that very condition' — is it not, monks, an entirely and perfectly foolish idea?" — "What else should it be, Lord? It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea."
- It can easily be seen that Buddha Himself taught:
- a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established
- a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found
- one [of course, "one" here also encompasses Buddha himself] cannot arrive at ‘self’ or ‘belongs to self’ as true and reliable
- in truth and in fact, self and self's property do not obtain
- Buddha did not apprehended a self and what belongs to a self as true and established
- Buddha did not actually found a self and what belongs to a self
- Buddha could not arrive at ‘self’ or ‘belongs to self’ as true and reliable
- Buddha knew that in truth and in fact, self and self's property do not obtain
(2) On the other hand:
"There is actually existing Self" message by IB Horner, in MN 22
- I still can't believe my eyes seeing this coming from The IB Horner while translating (not interpreting) the suttas.
IB Horner- “But if Self, monks, and what belongs to Self, although actually existing, are incomprehensible, is not the view and the causal relation that: ‘This the world this the self, after dying, I will become permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, I will stand fast like unto the eternal’—is not this, monks, absolute complete folly?”
“Lord, how could it not be absolute complete folly?”
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
-
- Posts: 2602
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm
Re: NO self
We have to form our own idea of self after reading various suttas in the texts.auto wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 3:57 pmYou are generalizing too much and end up being a noselfer.Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 6:40 am Even based solely upon that "Self" issue in MN 22, I would say that "There is no Self", because it is not an everyday run-off-the-mill person; It is the Buddha Himself who said:
"...since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self..." (Ven Dhammanando)
"...since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established..." (Bk. Ñāṇamoli/Bk. Bodhi)
"...where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality..." (Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
"... a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found ..." Bhikkhu Sujato
The totally foolish teaching is cosmos and self are one and the same. After death i will be permanent, everlasting..In same sutta the not belonging to the self part,https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: “But since a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found, is not the following a totally foolish teaching:
‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever’?”And the self part is that the others are not self,wrote: And what isn’t yours?
Kiñca, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ?
Form isn’t yours: give it up.
Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, na tumhākaṁ, taṁ pajahatha;above says:" to us that's neither self nor belonging to self". Same way also the cosmos is not self. Cosmos doesn't carry you, nor are you in the cosmos.wrote:Suppose a person was to carry off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves in this Jeta’s Grove, or burn them, or do what they want with them.
Would you think,
‘This person is carrying us off, burning us, or doing what they want with us’?”
“No, sir.
Why is that?
Because to us that’s neither self nor belonging to self.”
Actually it seem by us/self he means grass/form. So, the self the buddha is talking about is form.
More options in mn44,They don’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.
Because by reading Vacchagotta sutta one gets the idea , that the cosmos is eternal is not declared by lord budda.
Then in the same sutta Lord budda declares that form is not self and self is not form and at the same time he says that neither vedana, sangna sankara nor Vingnana can be regarded as self
This leaves the quotes by Hohner to be regarded further to be contemplated more, leaving us in a puzzle .
Next in Attarakkhita sutta , proclaimed by budda King kosala that atta meaning self (to me) has to be protected from wrong doings of word, mind and body.
Is it not that vacchagotta sutta and atta rakkhita sutta are contradictory. Yet the situation and the mentality within the questioner is considered by budda to whom he addressed a problem has to be understood even if the answers seem not to be the same.
As of the nature of self , I personally went in to our present day knowledge when a renowned mineralogist researched on the nature of beings , now called satva or satta . He found that all beings have a common purpose as duty bound on the cosmos where life exists.
He declared the area where life exists in terestrial planets exist in an area called biosphere. The beings here convert chemicals as nitrogen , carbon , oxygen which are inert by itself to gasses nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen for use of living as O2, as a manifestation of energy. On the other hand taken in totality life consists within the biosphere by all living beings as a cluster. But taken as single beings , a satva has to maintain protecting life for maintaining the cosmos as a whole.
In simple language, a "being" is a part of a whole life existence. Part of a whole as explained in science today.
Lord budda as loka vidhu , had this knowledge of the cosmos and the functioning of beings , but due to our poor knowledge , which he could not explain. The non acceptance of MN1 or mulaparyaya sutta , after his sermon is clear that the lay people on the earth could not absorb his explanation whence he went on to expound MN2 , anatta lakkhana sutta , really meaning signs of no self. An atta ?
Re: NO self
true - saccaSabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 7:21 am It can easily be seen that Buddha Himself taught:
a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established
not ascertained - anupalabbhamāna
partial copy, same word sacca used in,
As i gather from the above the self in three times(past, present and future) can't be established as true. Doesn't mean non-existence of self.https://suttacentral.net/dn9/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: “But Citta, suppose they were to ask you,
“Sace pana taṁ, citta, evaṁ puccheyyuṁ:
‘Is the reincarnation you had in the past your only real one, and those of the future and present fictitious?
‘yo te ahosi atīto attapaṭilābho, sova te attapaṭilābho sacco, mogho anāgato, mogho paccuppanno?
..
I’d answer like this,
Evaṁ puṭṭho ahaṁ, bhante, evaṁ byākareyyaṁ:
‘The reincarnation I had in the past was real at that time, and those of the future and present fictitious.
‘yo me ahosi atīto attapaṭilābho, sova me attapaṭilābho tasmiṁ samaye sacco ahosi, mogho anāgato, mogho paccuppanno.
..
“In the same way, while in any one of the three reincarnations, it’s not referred to as the other two, only under its own name.
Maybe you are overthinking something with the no self?
I think Horner's translation is as valid as anyone else's. Of course you can deliberately pick the one you like, but do you have context or reasoning behind it or you simply say there is no self?Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 7:21 am The post will just be about (1) Very clear "There is No Self" message of Buddha found in MN 22; and (2) IB Horner's unbelievably and jaw-droppingly straightforward fusion of "Self is actually existing" paradigm right into this very sutta translation.
wrote:I.B. Horner:
"But if Self and what belongs to Self, although actually existing are incomprehensible..."