The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
thecharmedbaja
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: London
Contact:

The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by thecharmedbaja »

:namaste: :D

I have very recently become a Buddhist (on the last Poya day, to be exact!), so have been looking further into what all you like-minded people believe. I had always been led to presume (by my friend and dad who are Buddhists) that it is a Theravadin belief of there being no 'self,' however, whilst looking up various things, I stumbled across this website which slightly confused me:

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awa ... oself.html

Forgive me if the website I was on is completely unreputable and you're all thinking I'm completely out of my mind for questioning my fellow Buddhist friends who have more than a couple decades of knowledge and experience behind them! :? Anyway, which view is right - did the Buddha believe that there was categorically no 'self,' or did he simply not answer the question?

Thanks for any help,

Metta,
Jasmine
'He is able who thinks he is able.' - The Buddha
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by seanpdx »

thecharmedbaja wrote::namaste: :D

I have very recently become a Buddhist (on the last Poya day, to be exact!), so have been looking further into what all you like-minded people believe. I had always been led to presume (by my friend and dad who are Buddhists) that it is a Theravadin belief of there being no 'self,' however, whilst looking up various things, I stumbled across this website which slightly confused me:

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awa ... oself.html

Forgive me if the website I was on is completely unreputable and you're all thinking I'm completely out of my mind for questioning my fellow Buddhist friends who have more than a couple decades of knowledge and experience behind them! :? Anyway, which view is right - did the Buddha believe that there was categorically no 'self,' or did he simply not answer the question?

Thanks for any help,

Metta,
Jasmine
He didn't answer the question.

Thanissaro, the author, is a very respected and reputable theravadin monk. Also check out accesstoinsight.org, which has a lot of his writing.
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by Goofaholix »

Here he develops the topic a bit more http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The way I see it whatever we understand or perceive as my "self" it's not that, it's a distortion of reality or a fabrication. That doesn't necessarily mean there's nothing there but that it's not what we perceive it to be, and our perception of self is at the root of much of our suffering.

"Not self" is not a belief, it's not a doctrine, it's a practice. Everything we experience we are to experience in terms of it also being "not self", this gradually erodes the construction of self that causes us so much suffering and frees us to see things in a totally new way.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by seanpdx »

For an academic response to the question, I'll quote Bronkhorst who himself refers to another work:
Johannes Bronkhorst wrote: At this point I may have to clarify some points. To begin with, the
early texts are not so clear as to whether the existence of a self is rejected
or not by the Buddha. Much has been written about this issue, without a
clear and unambiguous solution in sight so far. Most convincing is
probably Claus Oetke(5) who, at the end of a long and painstaking enquiry,
arrives at the conclusions that the early texts neither accept nor reject the
self.

(5) "Ich" und das Ich. Analytische Untersuchungen zur buddhistisch-brahmanischen Atmankontroverse,
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1988 (ANISt 33), pp. 59-242.
It's times like these I wish I could read german. *grin*
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by meindzai »

I hate confusing newcomers about this, but just be prepared to get a lot of different answers. A lot of it comes from different traditions and depends on what sources people use.

The answers so far are correct with regards to the most widely studied part of the Theravada canon which is contained in the Nikayas. These are the "Suttas" you will come across.

But if you study abhidhamma or talk to people who studied a lot of it you will most likely get a definitive "no" to the answer of whether a self exists. Not denying the conventional self (I am typing. I went to the store. I bought a loaf of bread) but in terms of ultimate dhammas or ultimate reality, no, there is no underlying essense or anything that can actually be called a "self" in any of it. There is just the arising and passing of dhammas (phenomenah) trillions of times per second in any given moment, all of which are anatta.

So as far as whether the Buddha "Said there was a self or not" depends on if you think the Buddha taught Abhidhamma or not. Thanissaro Bhikkhu (one of my top three favorite teachers) does come from a tradition that does not put much stock in Abhidhamma.

There are even people who will argue that you can come to the same "no" conclusion based on the Suttas. That's fine, though I tend to agree with Thanissaro the perspective of the Suttas it is kind of considered to just be a pointless question. "Ontology" in general was considered a kind of useless topic with regards to liberation - right along with politics and fashion.
"Just now, lord, after the meal, on returning from our alms round, we gathered at the meeting hall and got engaged in many kinds of bestial topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not."

"It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged in such topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not.
-M
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by tiltbillings »

seanpdx wrote:For an academic response to the question, I'll quote Bronkhorst who himself refers to another work:
Johannes Bronkhorst wrote:... at the end of a long and painstaking enquiry,
arrives at the conclusions that the early texts neither accept nor reject the
self.
Depends upon what is meant "self."
>> 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
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by seanpdx »

tiltbillings wrote:
seanpdx wrote:For an academic response to the question, I'll quote Bronkhorst who himself refers to another work:
Johannes Bronkhorst wrote:... at the end of a long and painstaking enquiry,
arrives at the conclusions that the early texts neither accept nor reject the
self.
Depends upon what is meant "self."
Quite right, and folks need to understand that the way we may define "self" may not necessarily be the proper way to define "self" in the context of early buddhism and its contemporaries. Hooray for language!
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by meindzai »

seanpdx wrote:For an academic response to the question, I'll quote Bronkhorst who himself refers to another work:
Johannes Bronkhorst wrote: At this point I may have to clarify some points. To begin with, the
early texts are not so clear as to whether the existence of a self is rejected
or not by the Buddha. Much has been written about this issue, without a
clear and unambiguous solution in sight so far. Most convincing is
probably Claus Oetke(5) who, at the end of a long and painstaking enquiry,
arrives at the conclusions that the early texts neither accept nor reject the
self.

(5) "Ich" und das Ich. Analytische Untersuchungen zur buddhistisch-brahmanischen Atmankontroverse,
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1988 (ANISt 33), pp. 59-242.
It's times like these I wish I could read german. *grin*
it's just the citation anyway. It is wierd (to me) that they compounded the Sanskrit (atman) with the german word for controversey. But they do like to compound words. (Mark Twain said that some German words are so long, they have perspective). Anywho...

I wonder if this particular scholar was taking Abhidhamma into account when he refers to "early texts."

-M
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by seanpdx »

meindzai wrote:That's fine, though I tend to agree with Thanissaro the perspective of the Suttas it is kind of considered to just be a pointless question. "Ontology" in general was considered a kind of useless topic with regards to liberation - right along with politics and fashion.
Arguably one of the best comments in this thread.

It's also good to point out that perspective is important, as meindzai noted. Those folks with 20+ years experience may simply be more inclined to follow an abhidhammic or commentarial tradition, or possibly a non-theravadin tradition (?).
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by jcsuperstar »

"You are a self that is not a real self. If you do not understand this, you do not understand Buddhism". -Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by cooran »

Hello all,

These links may be of assistance:

NO INNER CORE - ANATTA by Venerable Sayadaw U Sīlānanda
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ANATTA.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The Buddha’s Teaching of Selflessness Anattaa
An Essay, with extracts from the Sa.myutta-Nikaaya by Nyanatiloka Mahaathera
http://www.bps.lk/other_library/buddhas ... sness.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


What the Buddha Taught by Ven. Walpola Rahual (book can be downloaded, and relevant chapter accessed)
http://seouldharmagroup.ning.com/group/ ... Topic:6221" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by seanpdx »

meindzai wrote:
seanpdx wrote: (5) "Ich" und das Ich. Analytische Untersuchungen zur buddhistisch-brahmanischen Atmankontroverse,
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1988 (ANISt 33), pp. 59-242.

It's times like these I wish I could read german. *grin*
it's just the citation anyway. It is wierd (to me) that they compounded the Sanskrit (atman) with the german word for controversey. But they do like to compound words. (Mark Twain said that some German words are so long, they have perspective). Anywho...
Yeah, I found that odd also. Anyway, the point of my comment was that it'd be nice if I could read the work being cited. I'm assuming that it's not just the title that's in german.
I wonder if this particular scholar was taking Abhidhamma into account when he refers to "early texts."
To the best of my knowledge, no scholar of early buddhism accepts any abhidhamma/abhidharma as being a part of "early buddhism". All such works are clearly acknowledged to postdate the historical Buddha.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi
I agree with Thanissaro also.
The Buddha didn't make metaphysical or ontological statements of absolute reality, he gave logical reflective statements. as Ajahn Sumedho says the noble truths aren't noble because they are true, but because they are reflective statements of truth. or something to that effect.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by cooran »

Hello all,

I'd be interested in what your thoughts are on my links above -

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by seanpdx »

cooran wrote:Hello all,

I'd be interested in what your thoughts are on my links above -

with metta
Chris
I don't like 'em, no sir I don't.
Post Reply