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.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by tiltbillings »

Manapa wrote:Hi
I agree with Thanissaro also.
The Buddha didn't make metaphysical or ontological statements of absolute reality….
Well, yeah. What good is a metaphysical self? Does it see? Does it feel? Does it act?

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. If the metaphysical self sees, act, feels, what differentiates it from the khandhas?

What the Buddha dealt with was the “All”: "Monks, I will teach you the all. And what is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds the nose and odors, the tongue and tastes, the body and touch, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. If anyone, monks, should speak thus: ' Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all' - that would be a mere empty boast." SN IV 15, which is an interesting text in that it seems to be a response to the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad’s notion of what is “All”:
Klaus Klostermaier's A SURVEY OF HINDUISM, pgs: 137-8, 149-50 wrote:"In the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad we read a dialogue in which Yajnavalkya is asked the crucial question: Kati devah, how many are the devas [gods]? His first answer is a quotation from a Vedic text:

'Three hundred and three and three thousand and three." Pressed
on, he reduces the number first to thirty-three, then to six, then to
three, to two, to one-and-a-half and finally to One.

'Which is the one deva [god]?' And he answers: "The prana (breath, life). The Brahman. He is called tyat(that).' Though the devas still figure in sacrificial practice and religious debate, the question 'Who is God?' is here answered in terms that has remained the Hindu answer ever since.

10. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahman. It knew only itself
(atmanam): "I am Brahman!" Therefore it became the All. Whoever of the gods became awakened to this, he indeed became it; likewise in the case of seers (rsi), likewise in the case of men. Seeing this, indeed, the seer Vamadeva began:-

I was Manu and the sun (surya)!

This is so now also. Whoever thus knows "I am Brahman!" becomes this All; even the gods have not power to prevent his becoming thus, for he becomes their self (atman).

So whoever worships another divinity [than his Self], thinking "He is
one and I another," he knows not. He is like a sacrificial animal for the gods. Verily, indeed, as many animals would be of service to a man, even so each single person is of service to the gods. If even one animal is taken away, it is not pleasant. What, then, if many? Therefore it is not pleasing to those [gods] that men should know this.

11. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahman, one only.
So, again, what need is there of a metaphysical all or self? If it feels or acts, what differentiates it from the khandhas? What does it do? How can it be known?
>> 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
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by cooran »

seanpdx wrote:
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.
So ..... you don't like what Ven. Sayadaw U Silananda, Ven Rahula Walpola, and Ven.Nyanatiloka wrote based on the Tipitaka.

Why?

Rather than just an unsubstantiated remark, I'd be interested in a response with substance ~ quoting the relevant parts of their articles and relevant parts of the Suttas which show your perspective (whatever you choose to state) is correct.

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 ---
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by meindzai »

cooran wrote:Hello all,

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

with metta
Chris
They're quite long. :)

Which means only that it would take some time before I think we can really comment on them. But it goes to show that it is a complex subject and there is no easy way to answer a beginner. I feel for Jasmine, coming back to this thread and seeing the flurry of replies for such a seemingly simple question.

-M
User avatar
Chula
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:58 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by Chula »

I think people too easily misunderstand Thānissaro Bhikkhu's view on the not-self teaching. I recommend listening to his recent talks on a retreat about Anattā:

Selves and Not Self -
http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Retr ... Audio.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Holding that he has some hidden self-view, or that he thinks that the Buddha implied some possibility of a self outside of the aggregates, is a misunderstanding I think even people who claim to agree with his views fall to.
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by Goofaholix »

cooran wrote:Hello all,

I'd be interested in what your thoughts are on my links above -
I think they are links. Personally I don't generally have a great deal of motivation to click on links unless they are supporting some views, questions, or opinions expressed by the poster.

So what do you think of them?
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
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by meindzai »

Chula wrote:I think people too easily misunderstand Thānissaro Bhikkhu's view on the not-self teaching. I recommend listening to his recent talks on a retreat about Anattā:
I agree. I think they also have to take into account the context of his teaching - which is that it's based entirely off the Suttas, and not so much commentaries and Abhidhamma.

-M
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Jasmine,

Here are some related topics where this and similar issues have been discussed previously at Dhamma Wheel...

The Not-Self Strategy
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=309" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Challenging the Traditional view of Anatta
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2891" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for Thanissaro Bhikkhu's brief article you reference above, I think he is totally spot on.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
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 Tilt,
Looks like you answered your own question!

not sure what you were getting at though?
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
thecharmedbaja
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by thecharmedbaja »

meindzai wrote: 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.
I, personally, do not believe that the Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha's; I tend to stick to the first two pitakas. By your last statement, are you talking about our sense data from our six senses (i.e what we see, hear, feel, touch, etc), which, because we cannot see the world/ourselves without this data, we do not know if there is a self. And because of this - because of our senses - everything is anatta? Just a thought I've had (probably due to the topic I'm studying in Philosophy right now - Knowledge of the External World)

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.
So basically, it doesn't matter about whether or not there is a 'self'? I read somewhere on this forum that the Buddha says there are four ways he answered questions, the last of which being that he did not answer at all, due to the question being unrelated to the path to enlightenment. I guess this is one of them?
meindzai wrote:I feel for Jasmine, coming back to this thread and seeing the flurry of replies for such a seemingly simple question.
No, it was great! I thought I'd get no replies whatsoever! Thank you all :D
tiltbillings wrote:Depends upon what is meant "self."
I'm not too sure, to be honest :jumping: I guess I meant a consciousness, but that is one of the Five Aggregates, so I guess me asking about my thoughts of Anatta means that I am clinging to one of the Skandha, thus I will continue suffering!
retrofuturist wrote:The Not-Self Strategy
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=309" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thank you! Sorry I didn't look for answers on this forum more thoroughly! One of the key parts which stuck out in my mind was the Matrix analogy - we do not know if this "world/self" is an illusion until we 'wake up from the dream,' so to speak. And I guess in order to 'wake up from the dream,' we have to get out of this vicious cycle of life, death and rebirth! :D That's my take on it, anyway...


Thanks for everything everybody, I genuinely do appreciate it :) you've all helped me reach the conclusion that it really doesn't matter if there is a self or not :)

Good day to you all!
'He is able who thinks he is able.' - The Buddha
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by meindzai »

thecharmedbaja wrote:
I, personally, do not believe that the Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha's; I tend to stick to the first two pitakas. By your last statement, are you talking about our sense data from our six senses (i.e what we see, hear, feel, touch, etc), which, because we cannot see the world/ourselves without this data, we do not know if there is a self. And because of this - because of our senses - everything is anatta? Just a thought I've had (probably due to the topic I'm studying in Philosophy right now - Knowledge of the External World)
Any and all phenomenah, including sense data. Basically phenomenah (dhammas) arise and pass so quickly - as soon as they arise they are gone already. There is nothing that endures so nothing called a self can be found in them.
So basically, it doesn't matter about whether or not there is a 'self'? I read somewhere on this forum that the Buddha says there are four ways he answered questions, the last of which being that he did not answer at all, due to the question being unrelated to the path to enlightenment. I guess this is one of them?
It's more like he said "let's ask a more important question." Which was how we identify with things that cause us suffering, i.e. the aggregates. Talking about "whether things exist or not" is just sort of talking about philosophy which is (apologies to your professor) kind of a waste of time.

-M
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by tiltbillings »

Manapa wrote:Hi Tilt,
Looks like you answered your own question!

not sure what you were getting at though?
You stated: The Buddha didn't make metaphysical or ontological statements of absolute reality…. The point is a metaphysical self - a meaningless concept - is irrelevant to the Buddha's statement that there is no self to be found in one's 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
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 »

tiltbillings wrote:
Manapa wrote:Hi Tilt,
Looks like you answered your own question!

not sure what you were getting at though?
You stated: The Buddha didn't make metaphysical or ontological statements of absolute reality…. The point is a metaphysical self - a meaningless concept - is irrelevant to the Buddha's statement that there is no self to be found in one's experience.
did you miss the word didn't and the continuation of that line & post?
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.
The Buddha did not say 'there is no-self' and leave it at that, or did he go up to strangers tell them there is no-self, then go on his merry way?
The Buddha didn't make statement of self view in any form, he gave tools to abandon the self view.
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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by tiltbillings »

Manapa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Manapa wrote:Hi Tilt,
Looks like you answered your own question!

not sure what you were getting at though?
You stated: The Buddha didn't make metaphysical or ontological statements of absolute reality…. The point is a metaphysical self - a meaningless concept - is irrelevant to the Buddha's statement that there is no self to be found in one's experience.
did you miss the word didn't and the continuation of that line & post?
Not missed.
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.
The Buddha did not say 'there is no-self' and leave it at that, or did he go up to strangers tell them there is no-self, then go on his merry way?
Did I say that?
The Buddha didn't make statement of self view in any form, he gave tools to abandon the self view.
Well, that may be so; however, he certainly seems to have undercut the validity of any metaphysical claim of a 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
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 »

tiltbillings wrote:
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.
The Buddha did not say 'there is no-self' and leave it at that, or did he go up to strangers tell them there is no-self, then go on his merry way?
Did I say that?
No, I did
tiltbillings wrote:
The Buddha didn't make statement of self view in any form, he gave tools to abandon the self view.
Well, that may be so; however, he certainly seems to have undercut the validity of any metaphysical claim of a self.
Where did I say he didn't undermine some form of self view, or posited some form of self view?
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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Concept Of Anatta - No-Self

Post by tiltbillings »

Manapa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
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.
The Buddha did not say 'there is no-self' and leave it at that, or did he go up to strangers tell them there is no-self, then go on his merry way?
Did I say that?
No, I did
tiltbillings wrote:
The Buddha didn't make statement of self view in any form, he gave tools to abandon the self view.
Well, that may be so; however, he certainly seems to have undercut the validity of any metaphysical claim of a self.
Where did I say he didn't undermine some form of self view, or posited some form of self view?
Please, accept my apology. It was not my intention to say you were saying any of that. I think we agree here. I simply used your msg as a basis for giving textual examples of what, in my opinion, I see the texts as saying, not meaning to imply you thought differently.
>> 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
Post Reply