I am not good at Pali.
I only using common sense, normal logic and reason to point out that if there is unconditioned thing, what ever it is, then it is outside of all phenomena, outside of the reach of consciousness, because another member has said that all phenomena include the unconditioned. All phenomena have beginning and ending, which contradict to the unconditioned if there is any. Unconditioned means no beginning, not created, because has the beginning or be created already means conditioned.
Correct me if I was wrong
Regards
NO self
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: NO self
A discussion of this goes way outside of this particular thread OP. See the guidelines for this subforum: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=373" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;whynotme wrote:I am not good at Pali.
I only using common sense, normal logic and reason to point out that if there is unconditioned thing, what ever it is, then it is outside of all phenomena, outside of the reach of consciousness, because another member has said that all phenomena include the unconditioned. All phenomena have beginning and ending, which contradict to the unconditioned if there is any. Unconditioned means no beginning, not created, because has the beginning or be created already means conditioned.
Correct me if I was wrong
Regards
If you wish to pursue this further, please feel free to start a new thread in the appropriate section.
>> 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
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
Re: NO self
This dictionary is a good start for doctrinal terms:whynotme wrote:I am not good at Pali.
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... #asankhata" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Nibbāna entry notes:Asankhata: The Unformed, Unoriginated, Unconditioned, Uncreated & Unconstructed is a name for Nibbāna, the beyond of all becoming and conditionality.
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... bb%C4%81na" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...
One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not only for the actual realization of the goal of Nibbāna, but also for a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable preliminary condition to grasp fully the truth of anattā, the egolessness and insubstantiality of all forms of existence. Without such an understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nibbāna - according to one's either materialistic or metaphysical leanings - either as annihilation of an ego, or as an eternal state of existence into which an ego or self enters or with which it merges.
...
Mike
Re: NO self
Some more on "there is no self" .
It must be admitted hat someone could say " there is no self", and be having some sort of anilhilationist view such as the philosopher Hume, some scientists and materialism in general.
Thus more detail is needed to clarify, more about the vinnana sota, nama-rupa , conditionality, and dependent origination.
It must be admitted hat someone could say " there is no self", and be having some sort of anilhilationist view such as the philosopher Hume, some scientists and materialism in general.
Thus more detail is needed to clarify, more about the vinnana sota, nama-rupa , conditionality, and dependent origination.
Re: NO self
If annihilation implies belief in a Self that is annihilated, then that person cannot believe in "there is no Self".robertk wrote:Some more on "there is no self" .
It must be admitted hat someone could say " there is no self", and be having some sort of anilhilationist view such as the philosopher Hume, some scientists and materialism in general.
From metaphysical POV, Alex believes that Atta doesn't exist. To "reality" It doesn't make any difference whether we claim Atta or Not. Believing in Atta doesn't create real Atta.
The problem is with Self Views. But to deny Atta, you first have to postulate the wrong idea of Atta that you correctly reject. Thus in a sense, Self View is still present.
This is why I believe it is better to phrase Dhamma as much as possible into, for example, 4NT like the Buddha did in MN2.
Re: NO self
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]
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
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;
Mike
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;
Mike
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: NO self
- 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;
>> 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
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
Re: NO self
So the thought "I don't exist" is not the answer."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
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?'"
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Re: NO self
Hello RobertK,
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".
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.robertk wrote:Perhaps this sutta appeals to you Alex:Question: Is suffering caused by the self?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
Re: NO self
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".
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".