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
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.