NO self

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
dhammapal
Posts: 2636
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:23 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: NO self

Post 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.
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: NO self

Post 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.
Last edited by SamKR on Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:17 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: NO self

Post 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.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: NO self

Post 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
Please stop following me
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: NO self

Post 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?
>> 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
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: NO self

Post by whynotme »

tiltbillings wrote:
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?
No the true self doesn't think, perceive or feel.
In a similar way, where is nibbana? Is nibbana on the surface of the Earth, or it is on the Mars? No, you can't tell where nibbana is. Does nibbana think, perceive or feel? No, it doesn't. Can it be seen? No, it doesn't have color. Can it be heard, touched, smelt, tasted (by tounge)? No. Can it be measured or tracked? No, it doesn't have any manifestation. But does nibbana exist? Yes, nibbana exists

What does self mean? OK here is my definition: self means a thing that doesn't change over time. People tried to find the soul, the thing that identifies each of themselves, it means the thing that doesn't change over time. But everything they found will be changed over time.

Thing changes over time has no self, because it becomes a thing different to itself. You can't use changed properties to describe a thing, only unchanged properties could be used to identify a thing, that's the way we named everything around us, books, computers, houses, countries, people.. But in the long run, everything changes, so everything has no self.

But is there anything that does not change over time, the Buddhism says yes, there is a thing does not change over time. So it is the true self according to the above definition.
Well, time is based on changing so saying a thing does not change over time is not accurate, but just a way to say. Better should say it is outside of time scope. Because thought, perception, feeling, experience are based on change, thing outside of time scope is outside of worldly scope, outside of description. But it does exist.

Regards
Please stop following me
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: NO self

Post by tiltbillings »

whynotme wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
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?
No the true self doesn't think, perceive or feel.
Then what is the point of it? What does it do? What is its function?

Let us keep nibbana out of this discussion, given that nibbana "exist" -- according to the suttas -- in as much as there are individuals who have destroyed greed, hatred, and delusion -- which is to say, they are no longer conditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion. But what do the suttas say about a self that feels nothing, perceives nothing, and does not act?
>> 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
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: NO self

Post by whynotme »

tiltbillings wrote:Then what is the point of it? What doers it do? What is its function?

Let us keep nibbana out of this discussion, given that nibbana "exist" -- according to the suttas -- in as much as there are individuals who have destroyed greed, hatred, and delusion -- which is to say, they are no longer conditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion. But what do the suttas say about a self that feels nothing, perceives nothing, and does not act?
tilblillings, you read pali, so you can confirm there is a message by the Buddha that, if there isn't anything permanent, unconditioned then there would be no release from suffering and death, and because there is thing permanent, unconditioned so there is release from suffering. There is a statement similar to this, right? That statement clearly indicated that there is thing exists but has no beginning, and is permanent.

What is the point of self? I do not have enough wisdom to talk about a thing that impermanent, so I based on confirmed properties. And since wrong views can not lead to the right goal, I just want to counter the view that there is no self, I don't want to establish the view there is the self. Just because many here hold on the view there is no self which is not supported by the suttas. I know there is no self is supported by many monks, but the Kalama sutta said that we should not merely believe in monks, teachers, or traditions.. And especially, many of us have many more things to do than holding a view which is too far ahead of ourselves. Holding a view, no matter what is right or wrong, is a wrong attitude.

It is not logical to say there is no self based on examination. E.g I looked for my cell phone, I looked in the bedroom, the bathroom, kitchen.. I looked for it in all of my rooms and I didn't find it, then I came to a conclusion my cell phone doesn't exist, it is illogical. It is right to just say, there is no cell phone in bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, but it is wrong to say there is no cell phone (at all). Similarly, consciousness looked for self in six senses, in five aggregates and didn't find any self, the it comes to a conclusion, there is no self, it is a wrong statement and illogical. The only right and honest conclusion is that, there is no self in six senses, there is no self in five aggregate.

And I still don't believe most of us here have enough concentration to state that he already looked for self in all of six senses or five aggregates to say there is no self in them. Pana or wisdom only comes after concentration, they just believe in there is no self, and I think no need to hold on that view.

Regards
Please stop following me
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: NO self

Post by SamKR »

whynotme wrote:
It is not logical to say there is no self based on examination. E.g I looked for my cell phone, I looked in the bedroom, the bathroom, kitchen.. I looked for it in all of my rooms and I didn't find it, then I came to a conclusion my cell phone doesn't exist, it is illogical. It is right to just say, there is no cell phone in bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, but it is wrong to say there is no cell phone (at all).
"Cell phone" is just a concept referring to an aggregate of various parts which are in turn aggregates, and so on.
Similar to "chariot" mentioned in Milindapanha. http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Anatta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: NO self

Post by tiltbillings »

whynotme wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Then what is the point of it? What doers it do? What is its function?

Let us keep nibbana out of this discussion, given that nibbana "exist" -- according to the suttas -- in as much as there are individuals who have destroyed greed, hatred, and delusion -- which is to say, they are no longer conditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion. But what do the suttas say about a self that feels nothing, perceives nothing, and does not act?
tilblillings, you read pali, so you can confirm there is a message by the Buddha that, if there isn't anything permanent, unconditioned then there would be no release from suffering and death, and because there is thing permanent, unconditioned so there is release from suffering. There is a statement similar to this, right? That statement clearly indicated that there is thing exists but has no beginning, and is permanent.
A permanent, unconditioned thing that exists -- that is what you are saying that the Buddha taught. The problem with that, however, is that if there is some self-existing thing that is unconditioned -- which would mean that it is also unchanging -- there could be no possible connexion between that and what is conditioned, which puts the supposed unconditioned, unchanging thing out of reach, out knowledge, out of experience to the conditioned thing. If the unconditioned thing were in some sort of relationship to what is conditioned, the unconditioned thing would be in a relative -- that is, conditioned -- relationship with the conditioned, which would mean that the unconditioned is in fact conditioned by virtue of its relationship. This is a problem for theism. God is an unconditioned, absolute, and unchanging existence, which would mean that I could not pray to that god. If I could pray to that god, it heard and answered my prayer, the god would not be absolute, unconditioned, and unchanging.

The Buddha, in the Kaccaayanagotto Sutta (SN 12.15 PTS: S ii 16 CDB i 544), made it quite clear that the idea of existence is not reality. One needs to keep in mind that the Buddha never posited that nibbana was a self-existing thing. The Buddha did, however, state that nibbana is being free of the conditioning of greed, hatred, and delusion -- that is, one, who is nibbana-ized, is unconditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion.

Now, as for the "self," the Buddha clearly stated:
  • Bhikkhus, what exists by clinging to what, by adhering to what does view of self arise? … When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, view of self arises. When there is feeling…perception…voltional formations…consciousness, by clinging to consciousness, view of self arises. … Seeing thus… He understands: …there is no more for this state of being. – SN III 185-6.
  • Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. SN III 46
  • It is impossible, it cannot come to pass that a man possessed of (right) view would treat any dhamma as self - this situation does not occur. MN iii 64
  • ‘”I am’ is derivative upon form … perception … feelings … volitional formation … consciousness’ – S XXII 83/iii 105
In other words, there is no self to be found that is not a conditioned product of our experience. An unconditioned self would be meaningless because it could not feel, see, hear, or act. There would be no way to experience it, given that it could have no relationship to experience in any way.

The problem, it seems, with your assumptions about nibbana, and the idea of an (to use your words) "absolute self, the true self," is that you are still stuck of thinking these things in terms existence and non-existence, which the Buddha stated is the wrong way to approach experience.
>> 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
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: NO self

Post by whynotme »

SamKR wrote:
whynotme wrote:
It is not logical to say there is no self based on examination. E.g I looked for my cell phone, I looked in the bedroom, the bathroom, kitchen.. I looked for it in all of my rooms and I didn't find it, then I came to a conclusion my cell phone doesn't exist, it is illogical. It is right to just say, there is no cell phone in bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, but it is wrong to say there is no cell phone (at all).
"Cell phone" is just a concept referring to an aggregate of various parts which are in turn aggregates, and so on.
Similar to "chariot" mentioned in Milindapanha. http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Anatta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks, I knew it, I read Milindapanha, it is quite good

@ tiltbillings, thanks, I agreed with most of your post. But here is what I understood:

To say correctly, we can say that there is an unconditioned thing, because it is a fact (which already stated by the Buddha). So we can say correctly, there is self, both has the same meaning. They have nothing wrong with them. But to state there is no self, is totally wrong, which is why it is not found anywhere on the suttas.

The problem with there is self, is not it is wrong, but as you already pointed out, it is very hard to correctly understand and practice. If we say there is self, or there is an unconditioned thing, only very few understand them correctly, e.g at least sotapanna. Other may hold on a view with the self relates to five aggregates.

Yes, I am still inclined to existence and non existence, it is not much a problem for me because I am not a saint yet, even lower level saints are still inclined to existence and non existence. But for the sake of the discussion or for the sake of a statement, pretend that I am an arahant, then I can say there is self, like I can say there is unconditioned thing, perfectly. Meanwhile the statement, there is no self, is wrong, no matter who said it. And is a much more serious problem then mine.

Even when you stated there is no self with an implicit meaning, in five aggregates, then the danger of misunderstanding is very high, similar to the case of misunderstanding there is self and think it is a self in five aggregate. That why the Buddha had never stated that there is no self, and keep silent on the matter of an arahant after death, and keep silent when was being asked directly to it.

If you can say there is no self then we could easily say, after death, nothing is left for an arahant, quite frankly? So, we should not state that there is no self, shouln'd we? OK, from now I will use an arahant does not exist after death to counter the view there is no self. No need to use the complicated self.

Regards
Please stop following me
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: NO self

Post by tiltbillings »

whynotme wrote:
To say correctly, we can say that there is an unconditioned thing, because it is a fact (which already stated by the Buddha).
No, there is not. And no, he did not.
>> 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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: NO self

Post by tiltbillings »

whynotme wrote:
The problem with there is self, is not it is wrong, but as you already pointed out, it is very hard to correctly understand and practice. If we say there is self, or there is an unconditioned thing, only very few understand them correctly, e.g at least sotapanna. Other may hold on a view with the self relates to five aggregates.
The Buddha was quite clear. Any sense of self we might have -- and we do have a profound sense of self -- it is grounded in the khandhas. You might also want to look at
  • "You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair." MN 22.
Even when you stated there is no self with an implicit meaning, in five aggregates, then the danger of misunderstanding is very high,
Not if one understands paticcasamupadda.
That why the Buddha had never stated that there is no self, and keep silent on the matter of an arahant after death, and keep silent when was being asked directly to it.
You might do well to look at the actual texts where the Buddha kept silent in response to the question of the existence of a self. Context is everything.
If you can say there is no self then we could easily say, after death, nothing is left for an arahant, quite frankly? So, we should not state that there is no self, shouln'd we?
Again, your questions are grounded in the assumptions of being and non-being, a way of looking at thigs the Buddha rejected.
OK, from now I will use an arahant does not exist after death to counter the view there is no self. No need to use the complicated self.
If I am understanding you correctly, you would be wrong to say that "an arahant does not exist after death."

These two suttas would warrant careful study and consideration:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.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
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: NO self

Post by whynotme »

tiltbillings wrote:
whynotme wrote:
To say correctly, we can say that there is an unconditioned thing, because it is a fact (which already stated by the Buddha).
No, there is not. And no, he did not.
I can quote it in my language, but I am not familiar with English source. It is in khuddaka sutta, did you read all the suttas?
Please stop following me
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: NO self

Post by whynotme »

tiltbillings wrote:
whynotme wrote:
The problem with there is self, is not it is wrong, but as you already pointed out, it is very hard to correctly understand and practice. If we say there is self, or there is an unconditioned thing, only very few understand them correctly, e.g at least sotapanna. Other may hold on a view with the self relates to five aggregates.
The Buddha was quite clear. Any sense of self we might have -- and we do have a profound sense of self -- it is grounded in the khandhas. You might also want to look at
  • "You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair." MN 22.
So, at first I thought you agree with me that the Buddha already stated there is unconditioned, uncreated thing. If you don't agree with it then we must restart from that point. I will try to disentangle the misunderstanding.

OK, I agree that we should not build self theory, especially there is no self theory. There is self and there is no self, are wrong views. Can we agree on this point?
That why the Buddha had never stated that there is no self, and keep silent on the matter of an arahant after death, and keep silent when was being asked directly to it.
You might do well to look at the actual texts where the Buddha kept silent in response to the question of the existence of a self. Context is everything.
I agree that to understand some suttas, we need context. But we must use it carefully, or we will manipulate the Buddha's words to fit our own theory. Can I hear your explanation on that occasion's context? What is the reason the Buddha kept silent?

And no matter what the context, the Buddha had never stated that there is no self, do you agree with this?
If you can say there is no self then we could easily say, after death, nothing is left for an arahant, quite frankly? So, we should not state that there is no self, shouln'd we?
Again, your questions are grounded in the assumptions of being and non-being, a way of looking at thigs the Buddha rejected.
OK, from now I will use an arahant does not exist after death to counter the view there is no self. No need to use the complicated self.
If I am understanding you correctly, you would be wrong to say that "an arahant does not exist after death."

These two suttas would warrant careful study and consideration:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
OK, I saw your point.

Let me ask you, does dhammawheel forum exist?

Regards
Please stop following me
Post Reply