...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

[Alex123]

"Intending, one does"
What is the "one" referred to here? You seem to think it is some self-control or something, I think it simply conventionally refers to the being that is itself a process without self.

So you agree then, that the being acts. And possesses the elements of initiating, exertion, effort, steadfastness, persistence, and endeavoring. As explained by AN 6.38.

From what I've seen AN 6.38 does not mention beings. It mentions elements or principles which I think are different from beings. For instance sometimes the Buddha talks about a liquid element, not a liquid being....etc.
chownah

Attakari sutta does state that Buddha claims that he has never heard that there is no self doer...

[chownah]

From what I've seen AN 6.38 does not mention beings. It mentions elements or principles which I think are different from beings. For instance sometimes the Buddha talks about a liquid element, not a liquid being....etc.
chownah

Attakari sutta does state that Buddha claims that he has never heard that there is no self doer...

Alex123,
Thank you so much for your post. You are absolutely right and when I said the sutta did not mention beings I was absolutely wrong since the sutta not only mentions beings but does so on a very central way. I want to apologize to you and everyone else for this......I do not understand how I could have made such an obvious error and am especially dismayed that it was concerning such a central issue. I will paste the entire sutta here as it is not very long:


Then a certain brahman approached the Blessed One; having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, the brahman spoke to the Blessed One thus:

“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”[1]

“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]

“What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] ... is there an element of effort [7] ... is there an element of steadfastness [8] ... is there an element of persistence [9] ... is there an element of endeavoring?” [10]

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

“Superb, Venerable Gotama! Superb, Venerable Gotama! Venerable Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been turned upside down, revealing what had been concealed, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the dark: ‘Those who have eyes see forms!’ Just so, the Venerable Gotama has illuminated the Dhamma in various ways. I go to Venerable Gotama as refuge, and to the Dhamma, and to the assembly of monks. From this day, for as long as I am endowed with breath, let Venerable Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge.”
......end of sutta.........
As you can see my mistake is obvious. What I wish I had posted is that in this sutta the Buddha says that (for example) when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are discerned and such a being is the self doer. Note that it is an element (also previously described as a principle) which is the agent while what is discerned is a being. In my view the process of discernment here is a process of fabrication and thus not to be taken as self. So, one may very well ask what kind of illogic is this where a self doer should not be taken as self?.....my answer is that the concept of self doer is conventional speech and the Buddha presents his explanation starting with element as a basic concept followed by a being which is more highly fabricated than element which is followed by self doer which is an even more highly fabricated concept then being. Another way to explain my view is tha the Buddha is making a bridge from the less mundane and less fabricated "element" to the more mundane and highly fabricated "self doer"....a bridge which the Brahmin might be able to use to move towards more subtle views on fabrication and existence.
Again, I'm sorry to have posted so poorly,
chownah