What is No-Self?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
VinceField
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:03 am

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by VinceField »

I don't have a problem with this as a theory, however the Buddha's path is not about metaphysical speculation but rather to see the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self nature of the five aggregates and thus gain freedom from identification with and clinging to them.
I agree :smile:

I initially spoke up in light of your speculation regarding the concept of no-self to express my observation of several Buddhism forums that metaphysical speculation is often met with and attempted to be negated or defeated by nothing more than speculation of a different sort- Buddhist speculation, quoting suttas, ect, rather than insight from first hand experience. The suttas are great and all, but I'd respect a response detailing a person's personal experience (in accordance to the path) and resulting insight regarding these issues far more than quotes from second-hand scripture. Anyone can say that there is no self, or that consciousness is not self, or that there is no God, and then quote a sutta, but this does not make these statements true, and the person engaged in this activity is creating nothing more than their own speculation unless these statements are grounded in one's insight gained from first hand experience of these concepts, which in this case suttas are not even needed.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by tiltbillings »

VinceField wrote:
I don't have a problem with this as a theory, however the Buddha's path is not about metaphysical speculation but rather to see the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self nature of the five aggregates and thus gain freedom from identification with and clinging to them.
I agree :smile:

I initially spoke up in light of your speculation regarding the concept of no-self to express my observation of several Buddhism forums that metaphysical speculation is often met with and attempted to be negated or defeated by nothing more than speculation of a different sort- Buddhist speculation, quoting suttas, ect, rather than insight from first hand experience. The suttas are great and all, but I'd respect a response detailing a person's personal experience (in accordance to the path) and resulting insight regarding these issues far more than quotes from second-hand scripture. Anyone can say that there is no self, or that consciousness is not self, or that there is no God, and then quote a sutta, but this does not make these statements true, and the person engaged in this activity is creating nothing more than their own speculation unless these statements are grounded in one's insight gained from first hand experience of these concepts, which in this case suttas are not even needed.
I am not big on talking about personal experiences in forums such as this, especially in terms try to prove that one's position is correct, but since this is something I posted here in another context, I'll post it here in this context. It does not prove anything objectively. It is simply a relating of an experience I had, but it might be of interest:

  • During a three month vipassana retreat I was suffering from muscle spasms in my back. Very, very painful, and having struggled with it greatly, I went to one of the teachers there, Joseph Goldstein, who said that I should use the pain as the object of awareness. Damn, the obvious is stated, but sometimes being told the obvious is all that is needed.

    My next chance to sit was during the evening Dharma talk. As usual the pain started as I assumed my sitting posture. I had all I could do to keep from bolting out of the room to get away from the pain of the posture. With no small effort I was able to bring attention to the pain. As the pain became the object of my attention, everything else was blocked out.

    Intense, deep concentration. I heard nothing, was aware of nothing going on around me. There was just pain. Once I was able to establish awareness on – in – the pain, I was able to relax into it. The mindfulness became clear and very precise.

    The pain which had been a solid rock like thing became a play of sensation changing at an incredible rate, and the closer I attended to the change the clearer it became. There was no thinking about this, just attending to what was happening. As the muscles spasmed, sending out a paroxysm of pain, there was contracting from the pain – it was not as I wanted it to be - I was suffering.

    As the attention become more precise, the pain and suffering were seen as separate but inter-related things, the "I" was an add-on to the pain giving it the sense of suffering and the contracting from that – I do not want this pain.

    In the simple act of attending to the pain, this whole dynamic concatenation became clear and obvious, and with that insight the next spasm was not painful. It was, rather, a play of very, very rapidly changing sensations that was empty of a sense of "I". It was even empty of the sense of the concept of pain. The sense of "I" that arose was changing in response the changing conditions, and it, in its arising and changing, was seen as empty of any solidity.

    With that there was no resistance, no more contraction. There came a remarkable relaxation of my body, and my attention became very broad and open, attentive to the rise and fall of whatever came into its purview.

    The limitations of my body became transparent, there being no inside, no outside. It was all very ordinary: there was the Dharma talk that was happening, the coughing, shuffling of the other students, and the stuff happening "inside" of me. All just stuff happening with incredible rapidity and incredible clarity. It just was, empty, clear rising and falling. Suchness. Openness.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by Goofaholix »

VinceField wrote:I initially spoke up in light of your speculation regarding the concept of no-self to express my observation of several Buddhism forums that metaphysical speculation is often met with and attempted to be negated or defeated by nothing more than speculation of a different sort- Buddhist speculation, quoting suttas, ect, rather than insight from first hand experience.
Open mindedness is encouraged in Buddhsim and a lot of people seem to think open mindedness is about being willing to entertain any metaphysical or spiritual theory that seems to fit somehow with Buddhism.

However I think open mindedness is about dropping theories and just being with the bare bones of what is, just doing the practice and being with direct experience without need to attach to something that can't be proven or disproven as if we have something to prove.

As I've said before the practice is to see the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self nature of the five aggregates and thus gain freedom from identification with and clinging to them. This is a practice not a metaphysical theory, it's bottom-up no need for top-down. It's a letting go of what we normally attach to but there is no point if we just replace it with an accumulation of theories on how the mind-body process functions.

While it's true that sometimes people use sutta based knowledge in the same way as an accumulation of theories there has to be a starting point for what to the best of our knowledge is the core of what the Buddha taught, we can take our bottom up approach from there, otherwise we may as well be practicing Makeitupism.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
VinceField
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:03 am

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by VinceField »

However I think open mindedness is about dropping theories and just being with the bare bones of what is, just doing the practice and being with direct experience without need to attach to something that can't be proven or disproven as if we have something to prove.

As I've said before the practice is to see the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self nature of the five aggregates and thus gain freedom from identification with and clinging to them. This is a practice not a metaphysical theory, it's bottom-up no need for top-down. It's a letting go of what we normally attach to but there is no point if we just replace it with an accumulation of theories on how the mind-body process functions.
I agree my man. I wasn't referring to your comment of seeing the impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self nature of the aggregates, but rather to your statement about No Self and the subsequent barrage of sutta quotes that followed my response, simply to point out that often times it's essentially just a clash of one unsubstantiated theory against another when concepts contradicting Buddhist ideology are met with suttas quoted in faith alone.
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by Goofaholix »

VinceField wrote: I agree my man. I wasn't referring to your comment of seeing the impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self nature of the aggregates, but rather to your statement about No Self and the subsequent barrage of sutta quotes that followed my response, simply to point out that often times it's essentially just a clash of one unsubstantiated theory against another when concepts contradicting Buddhist ideology are met with suttas quoted in faith alone.
Nobody likes being barraged by sutta quotes, especially when the poster is not even making a point. However that doesn't mean we can be dismissive of what is the closest thing we have to an historical record of what the Buddha taught.

Even the most divergent of views usually trace back and show respect for the core Buddhist teachings, referring to such as unsubstantiated theory comes across as pretty disrespectful and who is to judge they are quoted in faith alone.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by Mkoll »

VinceField wrote:The suttas are great and all, but I'd respect a response detailing a person's personal experience (in accordance to the path) and resulting insight regarding these issues far more than quotes from second-hand scripture.
The difficulty is that others do not know if one is actually speaking from genuine insight or is just clinging to new views, falsely believing they have had genuine insight. And there is no way for one to prove this to others. So I think it's better to stay silent.
AN 8.53 wrote:"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
~~~
VinceField wrote:Anyone can say that there is no self, or that consciousness is not self, or that there is no God, and then quote a sutta, but this does not make these statements true, and the person engaged in this activity is creating nothing more than their own speculation unless these statements are grounded in one's insight gained from first hand experience of these concepts, which in this case suttas are not even needed.
The suttas are needed before full enlightenment. Until then, they provide the map with which to navigate. There are many cases in the Nikayas where monks become arahants simply by listening to the Buddha speak (a sutta). The importance of them is not to be underestimated.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by Mkoll »

Goofaholix wrote:Makeitupism.
AKA

"Syncretise one's own experiences and views with pieces of those spiritual traditions that one is partial to into a 'super-view' that conforms to one's confirmation biases in order that one may claim to others that one is enlightened."

Yes, I just made that up.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by culaavuso »

VinceField wrote:Anyone can say that there is no self, or that consciousness is not self, or that there is no God, and then quote a sutta, but this does not make these statements true, and the person engaged in this activity is creating nothing more than their own speculation unless these statements are grounded in one's insight gained from first hand experience of these concepts, which in this case suttas are not even needed.
It may be helpful to consider that personal experience and insight can not actually be shared. All that a board such as this can convey is words, whether those words be a quotation or a novel construction. In either case, it is only through personally practicing the path that insight can be gained. It would seem that until insight is gained for oneself, any words will seem to be just words representing unsubstantiated theories. For one who is practicing the path earnestly, the Nikāyas can serve as an excellent guide to prevent going the wrong direction. Words can show they way, but they can not convey the results of practice. This same idea can be conveyed, perhaps even better, with a quote from the suttas.
MN 107: Gaṇakamoggallāna Sutta wrote: "What do you think about this? A man might come along here wanting to go to Rajagaha. Having approached you, he might speak thus: 'I want to go to Rajagaha, sir; show me the way to this Rajagaha.' You might speak thus to him: "Yes, my good man, this road goes to Rajagaha; go along it for a while. When you have gone along it for a while you will see a village; go along for a while; when you have gone along for a while you will see a market town; go for a while. When you have gone along for a while you will see Rajagaha with its delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful fields, delightful ponds. But although he has been exhorted and instructed thus by you, he might take the wrong road and go westwards. Then a second man might come along wanting to go to Rajagaha...(as above)... you will see Rajagaha with its delightful... ponds.' Exhorted and instructed thus by you he might get to Rajagaha safely. What is the cause, brahman, what the reason that, since Rajagaha does exist, since the way leading to Rajagaha exists, since you exist as adviser, the one man, although being exhorted and instructed thus by you, may take the wrong road and go westwards while the other may get to Rajagaha safely?"

"What can I, good Gotama, do in this matter? A shower of the way, good Gotama, am I."

"Even so, brahman, nibbana does exist, the way leading to nibbana exists and I exist as adviser. But some of my disciples, on being exhorted and instructed thus by me attain the unchanging goal — nibbana, some do not attain it. What can I, brahman, do in this matter? A shower of the way, brahman, is a Tathagata."
If Rājagaha or the path to it is dismissed as an unsubstantiated theory then that dismissal may present a hindrance in reaching Rājagaha. To know that the path to Rājagaha is the correct path, no amount of words can provide that knowledge. Only travel along the path can bring that result. Until Rājagaha is at least seen on the horizon, it is impossible to know if the directions are true or false or provided out of faith or provided from personal knowledge of the person providing the directions. One person, having never seen Rājagaha, might pass along a map given to them by another. Another, having used that map to visit Rājagaha, might pass along the same map. Another, having used a map to visit Rājagaha, might draw a new map to give to others. Another, having never seen Rājagaha, might draw a map and pretend to have seen it. In any case, the person receiving the map simply has the choice to use the map to travel to Rājagaha or not.
User avatar
VinceField
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:03 am

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by VinceField »

Thanks for sharing your insights guys. I do understand the importance of the suttas and have respect for them, despite what some may have assumed from a few of my previous comments.
nfdod
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 8:32 am

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by nfdod »

I think these are concepts hard to grasp without experiential knowledge attained by meditation
Last edited by nfdod on Sat Jul 04, 2015 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
dhammarelax
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:59 pm

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by dhammarelax »

VinceField wrote:Lately I have been contemplating the Buddhist concept of no-self, as I have had some confusion about certain aspects of the idea.

On the one hand it is not difficult to understand or even experience the concept that not only one's external environment is not one's self, but also that one's body and the internal activities of the mind are also intrinsically not one's self due to their impermanent nature, although this seems to imply that the nature of the self must be permanent, which I do not believe is inherent in the concept, especially as there are multiple variations of the definition of self (these are described in Buddha's teachings found in the link at the bottom). However, I have trouble contemplating there being no self at all.

I believe there is a fundamental, core level of consciousness that is the true self, as my experiences in deeper levels of spiritual realities have seemed to reveal. I believe the true self is the deepest level of pure awareness, pure consciousness, pure experience of beingness, separate from any manifestations or fabrications that result in various illusory experiences of physical and nonphysical realities. The true self lies beneath the ever-changing experience, it is that source level of consciousness that perceives dukkha, anicca, and anatta, that core essence that is the constant observer.

After doing some research, it would appear that the idea of NO-self is a misinterpretation of the Buddha's teachings, with the more accurate interpretation being NOT-self. Here are some relevant pieces of information I have come across to clarify this issue and which I believe show that there is no contradiction between my belief in a fundamental self and the Buddhist concept of not-self, aside from the fact that Buddha taught not to have any beliefs regarding the nature of the self, and that it cannot be concluded that there is no fundamental level of consciousness that is the true seat of the self based on the Buddha's original teachings:

"This teaching (of No-Self) is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth?"

"Instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress...For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress."

"The Buddha, in teaching not-self, was not answering the question of whether there is or isn't a self. This question was one he explicitly put aside.... The issue is not, "What is my true self?" but "What kind of perception of self is skillful and when is it skillful, what kind of perception of not-self is skillful and when is it skillful?"

"In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?"

"On one interpretation, although Buddhism rejects the notion of a permanent self, it does not reject the notion of an empirical self (albeit consisting of constantly changing physical and mental phenomena) that can be conveniently referred to with words such as "I", "you", "being", "individual", etc. According to Buddhist teachings, this phenomenon should not, either in whole or in part, be reified, either in affirmation or denial."

"One misinterpretation is that the Buddha's not-self teaching is aimed specifically at negating the view of self proposed in the Brahmanical Upanishads — that the self is permanent, cosmic, and identical with God"

"The second misinterpretation is the exact opposite: The Buddha is negating the idea that you have a small, separate self, but he's affirming the existence of a large, interconnected, cosmic self."

"The third misinterpretation is similar to the first, but it introduces the idea that a self, to be a true self, has to be permanent. According to this interpretation, the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are, but these five aggregates don't really qualify to be called a self because they aren't permanent."

"None of these interpretations fit in with the Buddha's actual teachings, or his actual approach to the question of whether there is or is not a self. They misrepresent the Buddha both for formal reasons — the fact that they give an analytical answer to a question the Buddha put aside — and for reasons of content: They don't fit in with what the Buddha actually had to say on the topic of self and not-self."

"Another problem with this misinterpretation is that it opens the Buddha to charges of lying in the many passages where he does refer to the self in a positive way — as when he says that the self is its own mainstay. If there really is no self at all, why does he talk about it as if it exists? To get around this problem, the interpretation introduces the distinction between two levels of truth: conventional and ultimate. Thus, it says, when the Buddha is talking about self, he's doing so only in a conventional way. On the ultimate level, no self exists. The problem with this distinction is that the Buddha himself never uses it — it was introduced into the tradition at a much later date — and if it were so central to understanding his teachings, you'd think that he would have mentioned it. But he didn't."


My understanding is that the Buddha taught that contemplation and conceptualization of the idea of the self leads to suffering, but I don't see how this implies that there is no true self, especially as there are many aspects of the nature of the self and reality which are simply imperceptible to human awareness.

If anyone has a grasp on this concept I would be interested in hearing your opinions! :)

More can be found here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... self2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... html#talk6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I dont know if you have heard this interpretation before, Bhante Vimalaramsi says that the not self concept means that the process of Dependent origination is impersonal, is happening as a natural chain reaction, like A takes to B and so on, so we shouldn't take it as this is mine, this I am, this is myself. That is all there is to it.

Smile all the time
dhammarelax
Even if the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, I will use all my human firmness, human persistence and human striving. There will be no relaxing my persistence until I am the first of my generation to attain full awakening in this lifetime. ed. AN 2.5
User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by dhammacoustic »

I believe there is a fundamental, core level of consciousness that is the true self, as my experiences in deeper levels of spiritual realities have seemed to reveal. I believe the true self is the deepest level of pure awareness, pure consciousness, pure experience of beingness, separate from any manifestations or fabrications that result in various illusory experiences of physical and nonphysical realities. The true self lies beneath the ever-changing experience, it is that source level of consciousness that perceives dukkha, anicca, and anatta, that core essence that is the constant observer.
Didn't the Buddha reject ātman?

So what kind of consciousness is this? How can one be conscious of 'beingness' without subject/object split?
User avatar
srivijaya
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: UK

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by srivijaya »

VinceField wrote: After doing some research, it would appear that the idea of NO-self is a misinterpretation of the Buddha's teachings, with the more accurate interpretation being NOT-self.
Hi Vince,
You raise some very good points. The above is often used synonymously but both are very different. No-self is an ontological statement, it states that no self exists, never has existed and so on. It's essentially an oxymoron, as the person propounding it is attempting to intellectualise themselves out of existence. Utterly pointless in other words but nevertheless considered very important by some Buddhists.

Not-self is very different as it is experiential and found within the path. In order to find it there needs to be in-depth meditative insight into the nature of what constitutes "self". It's awareness that the label "self" is applied to a transient process over which there is no ownership. It's a different thing altogether and has nothing to do with metaphysics or speculation of any kind.
"Instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress...For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress."
Absolutely. It's speculation of one kind or another, rather than insight.
"In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?"
I agree but many will differ with you on that, principally that after the attainment of cessation (post mortem) there is no arising of any consciousness to enjoy such a freedom as you describe. All is extinguished - rather like a western scientific view of death - only it's the "real deal" this time, rather than further becoming. They have a lot of sutta to back this up. The fire is out. Finished. End of.
"On one interpretation, although Buddhism rejects the notion of a permanent self, it does not reject the notion of an empirical self (albeit consisting of constantly changing physical and mental phenomena) that can be conveniently referred to with words such as "I", "you", "being", "individual", etc. According to Buddhist teachings, this phenomenon should not, either in whole or in part, be reified, either in affirmation or denial."
Personally, I think Buddha wanted to avoid the whole "self" issue and he had good reason to do so. If at any stage in meditative development we cling to some experience (perhaps as an ultimate self) and fail to discern that "There is a further escape" we will not move on.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"One misinterpretation is that the Buddha's not-self teaching is aimed specifically at negating the view of self proposed in the Brahmanical Upanishads — that the self is permanent, cosmic, and identical with God"

"The second misinterpretation is the exact opposite: The Buddha is negating the idea that you have a small, separate self, but he's affirming the existence of a large, interconnected, cosmic self."

"The third misinterpretation is similar to the first, but it introduces the idea that a self, to be a true self, has to be permanent. According to this interpretation, the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are, but these five aggregates don't really qualify to be called a self because they aren't permanent."

"None of these interpretations fit in with the Buddha's actual teachings, or his actual approach to the question of whether there is or is not a self. They misrepresent the Buddha both for formal reasons — the fact that they give an analytical answer to a question the Buddha put aside — and for reasons of content: They don't fit in with what the Buddha actually had to say on the topic of self and not-self."
I'm glad you said that. Like you, I've always felt that it's square pegs and round holes when it comes to firing such assertions. None of the straw-man / Hindu-bashing / assertion of a view stuff really cuts it.
To get around this problem, the interpretation introduces the distinction between two levels of truth: conventional and ultimate. Thus, it says, when the Buddha is talking about self, he's doing so only in a conventional way. On the ultimate level, no self exists. The problem with this distinction is that the Buddha himself never uses it — it was introduced into the tradition at a much later date — and if it were so central to understanding his teachings, you'd think that he would have mentioned it. But he didn't."
True. He also only ever compared the world to a dream or illusion or foam or some such. He never said that it WAS an illusion or unreal. That's a whole new philosophy which requires seeing through "the veil of Maya" to reach the "ultimate" state of emptiness (or Nirguna Brahman for the Advaitins) etc. etc. and who knows where that teaching came from?
My understanding is that the Buddha taught that contemplation and conceptualization of the idea of the self leads to suffering,
Not quite. You can say all you like about yourself and you won't suffer. It's the mind's contraction around the event of self which is suffering. This is also the case when we enjoy dualistic "pleasure" and try to cling to it. It's visceral, rather than a concept. You know, someone spits in your face and it takes 0.000001 seconds for you to get furious. There's no theory here - there is contraction around the vortex of self.
but I don't see how this implies that there is no true self, especially as there are many aspects of the nature of the self and reality which are simply imperceptible to human awareness.
True self? No true self? Does it matter? When objects of desire or aversion manifest, where's the theory then? It's a process, not a thing.

Well, that's my 2 cents
:anjali:
SEC201482
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by SEC201482 »

LXNDR wrote:
No_Mind wrote:
LXNDR wrote:
transient
But then the question arises - if the self disappears how does the arahant perform daily tasks. For example to put it bluntly - when you are in a bus and you want to pee your self tells you not to pee till you find a restroom.

If an arahant has no transient self then will he pee where he is standing? Some entity in the brain has to command "wait and pee when the bus stops and you find a restroom".

It is not like having a lobotomy is it?

Also I wanted to ask a question which is rather sensitive. If some one slaps an arahant will he not become annoyed? Then who is becoming annoyed?

This is not a joke but a serious question.
accommodation to the new way of functioning takes time for them, in other aspects the body functions on its own, the life force drives it, this is how awakened people describe it, including Bernadette Roberts

cannot speak for an arahant, i personally think they cannot become annoyed because their emotional self is gone, that's what is meant by dispassion and equanimity, no movement inside, perfect stillness

I wouldn't use Bernadette Roberts as an example in the context of the Dhamma. Ironically, she does highlight the difference between between Advaita and Theravada, but she doesn't understand Buddhism enough to realize her own limitations. For some reason, Thanissaro Bhikkhu seems to be the only one who understand this and has brought this up, but Majjhima Nikaya 106 points out that you can hold onto the "no self" view and induce the arupa of "nothingness." This is exactly what Bernadette Roberts did:

On a more refined level, the act of holding to the view that there is no self contains a fetter in the very act of holding to the view. It can also lead a meditator to become fettered to any experience of peace or equanimity that meditating on this view might produce. As MN 106 points out, the perception of not-self, when consistently applied to all experience through the senses, can lead to a formless level of meditative absorption called the dimension of nothingness.

`Then again, the disciple of the noble ones, having gone into the
wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers
this: `This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' Practicing
and frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that
dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension
of nothingness now or else is committed to discernment. With the
break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on
consciousness of his will go to the dimension of nothingness.' - MN
106

On attaining this level of concentration, a person who holds to the view that there is no self would read the experience of nothingness as confirmation of that view. Satisfied that he had found the truth, he would stop there, not realizing that there is more work to be done. That's because in that state, as in all the formless attainments, any contentment with the attainment and the peaceful sense of equanimity it contains makes it an object of clinging.

http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writ ... 160229.pdf
User avatar
Monkey Gift of Honey
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:23 am

Re: What is No-Self?

Post by Monkey Gift of Honey »

VinceField,

A better question: What is self?

Where does self reside?
As a mother watches over her child, willing to risk her own life to protect her only child, so with a boundless heart should one cherish all living beings, suffusing the whole world with unobstructed loving kindness. Standing or walking, sitting or lying down, during all of one's waking hours, one should sustain this heart and this way of living.
- Karaniya Metta Sutta
Post Reply