Page 2 of 10

Re: NO self

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:01 am
by robertk
Perhaps this sutta appeals to you Alex:

Question: Is suffering caused by the self?

Answer: Do not put it that way.

Question: Is suffering then caused by external factors?

Answer: Do not put it that way.

Question: Is suffering then caused both by oneself and external factors?

Answer: Do not put it that way.

Question: Is suffering then caused neither by oneself nor external factors?

Answer: Do not put it that way.

Question: In that case, is there no such thing as suffering?

Answer: It is not that there is no such thing as suffering. Suffering does exist.

Question: In that case, is it that Venerable Gotama does not see or know suffering?

Answer: It is not that I do not see or know suffering. I do indeed know and see suffering.

Question: May the Blessed One please tell me then, please instruct me, about suffering.

Answer: To say 'suffering is caused by the self,' is the same as saying 'he who acts receives the results (suffering).' This tends to the eternalist view (sassataditthi). Saying 'suffering is caused by other agents,' as a person who experiences sharp and painful feelings would feel, is just like saying, 'one person acts, another suffers.' This tends to the annihilationist view (ucchedaditthi). The Tathagata, avoiding those two extremes, proclaims a teaching that is balanced, thus, 'With ignorance as condition there are volitional impulses; with volitional impulses as condition, consciousness ... with the complete abandoning of ignorance, volitional impulses cease; with the cessation of volitional impulses, consciousness ceases ...' [S.II.19]

Re: NO self

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:19 am
by mikenz66
Thanks Robert,

There are various comments about that Sutta on this thread: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11403" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Mike

Re: NO self

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:24 am
by tiltbillings
  • SN 5.9 PTS: S i 134 CDB i 228
    Sela Sutta: Sela
    translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi
    © 1997–2012

    Setting at Savatthi. Then, in the morning, the bhikkhuni Sela dressed... she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day's abiding.

    Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Sela, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:

    By whom has this puppet been created?
    Where is the maker of the puppet?
    Where has the puppet arisen?
    Where does the puppet cease?

    Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Sela: "Now who is this...? This is Mara the Evil One... desiring to make me fall away from concentration."

    Then the bhikkhuni Sela, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses:

    This puppet is not made by itself,
    Nor is this misery made by another.
    It has come to be dependent on a cause,
    When the cause dissolves then it will cease.

    As when a seed is sown in a field
    It grows depending on a pair of factors:
    It requires both the soil's nutrients
    And a steady supply of moisture.

    Just so the aggregates and elements,
    And these six bases of sensory contact,
    Have come to be dependent on a cause;
    When the cause dissolves they will cease.

    Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Sela knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: NO self

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:49 am
by pegembara
"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?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."

Sabbasava Sutta
So the thought "I don't exist" is not the answer.
And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

Re: NO self

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:35 pm
by Alex123
Hello RobertK,
robertk wrote:Perhaps this sutta appeals to you Alex:Question: Is suffering caused by the self?
Thank you for your sutta quote. Dukkha is inherent characteristic in phenomenon, just like anicca and anatta. One or some other person doesn't have to create it for it to exist. Our ignorance of fire being hot doesn't prevent it from burning something.


I do not, do not, claim that Atta exists. I believe that we should relate to every dhamma as "Not-I, not-Me, not-Mine".

Re: NO self

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:06 pm
by twelph
With the Buddha stating that the Dhamma is "visible here and now", how are we able to cultivate a view of "no-self"? I am able to view each of the aggregates as not-self, but trying to cultivate a view of the self not existing is not something I can comprehend trying to practice with. As far as I know, the only things that the Buddha wanted us to take as fact are the 4 noble truths. Annata seems to only be grouped with right view when the three marks of existence are mentioned, but there is controversy about it being grouped together with dukkha and anicca.

Re: NO self

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:44 pm
by robertk
By hearing or reading deep teachings on anatta there will/may (it depends) begin to be wise consideration about this matter. And that is the first step, which will/may, lead to moments of seeing the anattaness of realities that are appearing now.
For example, one might start to see that no one can make or stop a moment of seeing arise: it simply happens that there is seeing (cakkhuvinnana) when the eyes are open.There is no self deciding to see.

Re: NO self

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:35 pm
by DAWN
All that impermanent is conditioned.
All that conditioned don't have any independent existence.

Because all fenomena is conditioned, there is no independant self.
There is fenomenal self, but that self is no-self, because conditioned, there is no doer, fenomenas condition them selves and keep they narutal mouvement of causes and consequances.

Self is brain memory about past fenomenas.
There is no past fenomenas in the present.
There is no memory in the present.
There is no self.
All that birn will dead.

Re: NO self

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:47 am
by SamKR
I think there are two types of "no self". The first is the wrong view of "no self" related to ucchedavada.
The second is the right view that "all" is "not self"; or that there is "no self" in "all".
So to me,
no-self = not-self
In "all" we can not find any immutable and indivisible "doer" which "does" with "free will".

Re: NO self

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:06 am
by Reductor
:goodpost:

Re: NO self

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:22 am
by dhammapal
Hi,

Check out AN6:38 Attakari Sutta: The Self-Doer. The Buddha says that he's never heard of the view that there is no self-doer and asks the brahman if he agrees that there is an element of initiating or beginning an action.

With metta / dhammapal.

Re: NO self

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:47 am
by SamKR
dhammapal wrote:Hi,

Check out AN6:38 Attakari Sutta: The Self-Doer. The Buddha says that he's never heard of the view that there is no self-doer and asks the brahman if he agrees that there is an element of initiating or beginning an action.

With metta / dhammapal.
True, but I said: In "all" we can not find any immutable and indivisible "doer" which "does" with "free will". This is consistently supported by various suttas on anicca and anatta.

Of course, there are mutable and divisible aggregates (perceived as self and others) which "do", and which experience the results of the deeds.
The view "‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’” (in the context and situation of above sutta, when the Buddha was instructing that certain Brahman) could be one of the wrong views related to annihilationism and amoralism which could lead to the wrong view that individuals are not responsible for the deeds.

Re: NO self

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:11 am
by DAWN
Into jail we can move to, but we can't go out.
All fenomena, all that can be known is conditioned, not free, not self.

Re: NO self

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:49 am
by whynotme
SamKR wrote:I think there are two types of "no self". The first is the wrong view of "no self" related to ucchedavada.
The second is the right view that "all" is "not self"; or that there is "no self" in "all".
So to me,
no-self = not-self
In "all" we can not find any immutable and indivisible "doer" which "does" with "free will".
I agree with you that there is no self in all, and I agree that we can not find any immutable and indivisible "doer" which "does" with "free will", but I do not agree that there is no self.

What is all? All is six senses, there is no self in six senses. All is five aggregates, there is no self in five aggregates. All is the world, there is no self, no owner of the world. There is no doer or soul in six senses or five aggregate.

But just saying merely there is no self, is wrong view, where it means differently to these cases above: the self does not exist. Because all is different to everything, i.e there is thing outside of all, that thing is unconditioned and unchanged, it is called nibbana. Because of nibbana's properties, it is impossible to talk about it, words can't describe it, but nibbana truly exists outside of all - the conditioned world. I remember there is a sutta, maybe in Khuddaka Nikaya not the earliest sutta but it is still worth to consider, where the Buddha stated that, if there isn't anything that unconditioned, unchanged, then there would be no release from things that conditioned, impermanent. Because there is thing that unconditioned, unchanged so there is release from conditioned, permanent things.

So, there are two type of self:
1/ The conventional self, which is needed in communication and right intention, e.g I did this, I tried this, I will do this, you do that, he did that, they did that.. The sutta above talked about this self, if one thinks there is no one does anything, then he can not have right intention, will, exertion to do the works that need to be done.
2/ The absolute self, the true self, which means soul, ego,.. or in simple words, just I or me. The Buddha had never stated that there is no self in according to this meaning.

Regards

Re: NO self

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:04 am
by tiltbillings
whynotme wrote:2/ The absolute self, the true self, which means soul, ego,.. or in simple words, just I or me. The Buddha had never stated that there is no self in according to this meaning.
Where is this "absolute/true self" and what does it do? Does it think? Does it perceive? Does it feel?