NO self
Re: NO self
If the Buddha taught "NO self," why did he instruct bhikkhus to make themselves their governing principle (AN 3.40, Adhipateyya Sutta) and be islands unto themselves (SN 22.43, Attadiipaa Sutta)?
Re: NO self
What the recognition of anatta negates is a permanent, unchanging Self. This recognition doesn't preclude the use of pronouns as expedient conventional expressions.danieLion wrote:If the Buddha taught "NO self," why did he instruct bhikkhus to make themselves their governing principle (AN 3.40, Adhipateyya Sutta) and be islands unto themselves (SN 22.43, Attadiipaa Sutta)?
Re: NO self
Yes, I' made this point above. This is a further point. The contexts of these passages do not indicate that the Buddha was instructing these bhikkhus in any kind of expedient-conventional-expression way. These are formal instructions.Ñāṇa wrote:What the recognition of anatta negates is a permanent, unchanging Self. This recognition doesn't preclude the use of pronouns as expedient conventional expressions.danieLion wrote:If the Buddha taught "NO self," why did he instruct bhikkhus to make themselves their governing principle (AN 3.40, Adhipateyya Sutta) and be islands unto themselves (SN 22.43, Attadiipaa Sutta)?
Having a sense of self and a healthy ego is necessary on the path.
All this adds up to: the Buddha didn't teach "NO self."
Re: NO self
All instructions are expedient conventional expressions.danieLion wrote:The contexts of these passages do not indicate that the Buddha was instructing these bhikkhus in any kind of expedient-conventional-expression way. These are formal instructions.
Right. The ego isn't what is being negated by the recognition of anatta. Hence, Jack Engler's phrase: "You have to be somebody before you can be nobody."danieLion wrote:Having a sense of self and a healthy ego is necessary on the path.
Re: NO self
I stand corrected and defer to your knoweldge.Ñāṇa wrote:All instructions are expedient conventional expressions.danieLion wrote:The contexts of these passages do not indicate that the Buddha was instructing these bhikkhus in any kind of expedient-conventional-expression way. These are formal instructions.
danieLion wrote:Having a sense of self and a healthy ego is necessary on the path.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any way of having a sense of self and a healthy ego if I believe the Buddha taught "NO self."Ñāṇa wrote:Right. The ego isn't what is being negated by the recognition of anatta. Hence, Jack Engler's phrase: "You have to be somebody before you can be nobody."
Re: NO self
Anatta has been misrepresented both in the direction of over-negation and in the opposite direction of under-negation. Again, anatta negates a permanent, unchanging Self, not the impermanent, changeable, developmental self-structure that is a necessary part of healthy psychological development. No aspect of this latter developmental structure is a permanent unchanging Self. Therefore, no part of it should be grasped at or clung to as a means of salvation.danieLion wrote:Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any way of having a sense of self and a healthy ego if I believe the Buddha taught "NO self."
Re: NO self
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi translate anatta like "noself".
If we watch in the past there is conditioned "noself".
If we wath in the very present moment, at the very border of reality, there is "no self" at all.
If i see it rightly.
Anyway it's a void discussion, IMO.
Friendly
If we watch in the past there is conditioned "noself".
If we wath in the very present moment, at the very border of reality, there is "no self" at all.
If i see it rightly.
Anyway it's a void discussion, IMO.
Friendly
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
Right. Grasping and clinging are signs of a sickly functioning ego. The psychologically healthy self-structure knows it's neither permanent nor unchanging.Ñāṇa wrote:No aspect of this latter developmental structure is a permanent unchanging Self. Therefore, no part of it should be grasped at or clung to as a means of salvation.
Re: NO self
Where?DAWN wrote:Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi translate anatta like "noself".
In my copies of the Majjhima Nikaya (MN) and the Samyutta Nikaya it's rendered "non self" (and listed in the subject index of MN as "not self").
Re: NO self
Good question !danieLion wrote:Where?DAWN wrote:Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi translate anatta like "noself".
In my copies of the Majjhima Nikaya (MN) and the Samyutta Nikaya it's rendered "non self" (and listed in the subject index of MN as "not self").
I hope i make not mistake, and this "noself" apear in SN of Ven. Bidhi, at non en DN of M.Walshe.
I will try to find it.
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
Find !
SN 35.1 p.1133
"Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this is I am not, this is not my self. "
I dont know if it's change something (actualy i'am not sure that this debate about 'no self' or 'not self' or 'notself' or 'nonself' can change the practice), but my mind have catched this 'nonself' (actualy i mistake, first time i wrote NOself, and not NONself), so i post it this.
Friendly
SN 35.1 p.1133
"Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this is I am not, this is not my self. "
I dont know if it's change something (actualy i'am not sure that this debate about 'no self' or 'not self' or 'notself' or 'nonself' can change the practice), but my mind have catched this 'nonself' (actualy i mistake, first time i wrote NOself, and not NONself), so i post it this.
Friendly
Last edited by DAWN on Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Well, I'm not so sure of that. Worldlings can be "psychologically healthy" by societal standards, yet still hold any number of different identity views that are rejected in the Nikāyas, including views of a permanent unchanging self or soul. A stream entrant, on the other hand, has abandoned identity views, yet still has the underlying tendency of "I am."danieLion wrote:The psychologically healthy self-structure knows it's neither permanent nor unchanging.
Another point you mentioned previously about your concerns regarding "no self": The psychological self-structure doesn't fill the criteria of a "self" in the Nikāyas, therefore I think it's fine to say that the Buddha taught that there is no self. The only caveat I would add is that this isn't something to be dogmatically clung to either.
Re: NO self
It's okay. I get confused too, like right now, absorbing Nana's last post. And for all I know, Rev. Bodhi has translated it "no self" somewhere.DAWN wrote:Find !
SN 35.1 p.1133
"Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this is I am not, this is not my self. "
I dont know if it's change something (actualy i'am not sure that this debate about 'no self' or 'not self' or 'notself' or 'nonself' can change the practice), but my mind have catched this 'nonself' (actualy i mistake, first time i wrote NOself, and not NONself), so i post it this.
Friendly
Re: NO self
By the criteria in the Nikayas you mean a "self" as the aggregates, right?Ñāṇa wrote:Well, I'm not so sure of that. Worldlings can be "psychologically healthy" by societal standards, yet still hold any number of different identity views that are rejected in the Nikāyas, including views of a permanent unchanging self or soul. A stream entrant, on the other hand, has abandoned identity views, yet still has the underlying tendency of "I am."danieLion wrote:The psychologically healthy self-structure knows it's neither permanent nor unchanging.
Another point you mentioned previously about your concerns regarding "no self": The psychological self-structure doesn't fill the criteria of a "self" in the Nikāyas, therefore I think it's fine to say that the Buddha taught that there is no self. The only caveat I would add is that this isn't something to be dogmatically clung to either.
Re: NO self
I mean a self that would be:danieLion wrote:By the criteria in the Nikayas you mean a "self" as the aggregates, right?
1. not prone to dis-ease
2. fully self-determining (be in complete autonomous control of itself)
3. permanent
4. satisfactory
These four criteria can easily be inferred from the dialogue in SN 22.59.