"Nothing exists", or (how) does it?

[PeterB]

I am speaking conventional and experientially. I have taken a vow not to do anything else..
Apology not needed.

[EricJ]

I am speaking conventional and experientially. I have taken a vow not to do anything else..
Apology not needed.

A wise vow which everybody should probably take.

[Shonin]

The point is there are no satisfactory forms of words in this area. We can pick and niggle about whether we do or dont have a self and it wont alter a thing. For start we are having a conversation in a language which like all modern languages does not translate well the meta language of Pali. Much of what passes for Buddhist discussion can be seen as simply a debate about semantics.
As one of my teachers used to say " most of the time all we actually need to do is help someone frame the question properly , which often means deploying a little Pali, and the question answers itself. "
A few days Vipassana equals a hundred years of discussion. Which is not to down play the importance of forums. It is to put them into perspective.

On the other hand, the Buddha taught non-self and he taught it not as idle philosophy but as a key aspect of the path. To insist that there is a self in that context I would suggest is confusing and unhelpful - especially for beginners.

[Hoo]

I am speaking conventional and experientially. I have taken a vow not to do anything else..
Apology not needed.

Hear, hear! This is another case where my silence would probably serve better than my speech So I think I'd better do that.

[sukhamanveti]

Hi Anna,

I think we need to define our terms clearly here.

I do have a self, I feel. I am clearly not my cat, which had another self, and I am not my best friend, she has her own self.

But we don't have a permanent self. Right. Right?

So the statement "we don't have a self" seems again incomplete to me, because, ideally, it should read: "We don't have a permanent self, but a temporary self".

Is this correct understanding?

I'm sorry if I am giving you all stress with this, but it just makes no sense to me put in any other way, it may be difficulty with words! -please bear with me,- although I have the same trouble in German!

It isn't correct understanding Buddhism to say that you temporarily have a self and then you stop having a self. This sort of view is associated with Annihilationism and Materialism, which Buddha rejected.

Of course you feel, you have a sense of identity, you have a personality, there is physical and mental space between you and your cat. Yes you exist in this way. And so do I. We all have different thoughts and tendencies and we are in different places in space. When you pinch yourself it hurts and you can't read my thoughts. But Anatta is not a denial of that. Atta is an inherent nature, an absolute identity, an essence. Are these phenomena due to an Atta or are they due to causes and conditions with a mere appearance of you having or being an essence?

When 'you feel' what is it that is actually experienced? The phenomena that we call 'feelings' arise. There is also identification with those feelings since you experience them as 'you' or 'yours'. This identification produces the compelling illusion that it is a self or is due to a self, the existence of which is never directly observed, it is just kind of implied by mental processes. In reality identification is another process / phenomenon. So, phenomena of feeling are arising and phenomena of identification (a kind of grasping) are arising. There is no inherent nature involved.

What is temporary is your body, your personality, your mental states etc. Yet none of these things is due to being/having a self (in the Buddhist sense), so there is no self that arises and no self that comes to an end.

I think it is worth noting that the Buddha also often used the word "self" or atta in the conventional sense, as a convenient way to refer to a confluence of the Five Aggregates, like you or me. He denied it in the ultimate sense, as an independently-existing, unchanging, blissful essence, but embraced it as a conventional designation. To quote Maurice Walshe's intro to the Digha Nikaya, "In the same way, all such expressions as 'I', 'self', and so on are always in accordance with conventional truth, and the Buddha never hesitated to use the word atta 'self'... in its conventional and convenient sense." I think that an excellent example of this is chapter 12 of the Dhammapada, as is especially evident in more literal translations. "If one knew the self to be dear, one would guard it well." (Attānañce piyaṃ jaññā...verse 157 or Dh. 12.1) "The self is indeed the lord of the self..." (Attā hi attano nātho, verse 160 or Dh. 12.4) "By the self alone is evil done..." (Attanā hi kataṃ pāpaṃ, v. 161 or Dh. 12.5). These are among the passages that give misinformed people the impression that the Buddha taught an Upanishadic Atman (something he repeatedly refuted in such passages as MN 22:15, 22-23, 25, etc.). Steven Collins also addresses this in section 2.2 of his excellent book Selfless Persons. He mentions such Pali terms attavetana ("supporting oneself," in the ordinary sense, not supporting an Atman), khematta ("at peace with himself"), attanuvada ("self-reproach"), etc.

My point is merely that one can use the word "self" to refer to a confluence of the Five Aggregates without violating the doctrine and method of Anatta or Not-Self. (For a variety of false "Selves," see, for example, the Brahmajala Sutta.)

[ground]

If someone says "nothing exists" and believes this then this might be the result of being frustrated by things not existing the way they have been supposed to exist.

kind regards

[Shonin]

My point is merely that one can use the word "self" to refer to a confluence of the Five Aggregates without violating the doctrine and method of Anatta or Not-Self. (For a variety of false "Selves," see, for example, the Brahmajala Sutta.)

A very reasonable point. I'm sure there was a lot of confusion about what was meant at that time too. So, even though this may be the case, I still think it is worth making clear linguistic distinctions in order to minimise confusion.

[Annapurna]

The point is there are no satisfactory forms of words in this area. We can pick and niggle about whether we do or dont have a self and it wont alter a thing. For start we are having a conversation in a language which like all modern languages does not translate well the meta language of Pali. Much of what passes for Buddhist discussion can be seen as simply a debate about semantics.
As one of my teachers used to say " most of the time all we actually need to do is help someone frame the question properly , which often means deploying a little Pali, and the question answers itself. "
A few days Vipassana equals a hundred years of discussion. Which is not to down play the importance of forums. It is to put them into perspective.

On the other hand, the Buddha taught non-self and he taught it not as idle philosophy but as a key aspect of the path. To insist that there is a self in that context I would suggest is confusing and unhelpful - especially for beginners.

The whole topic is about what is helpful for a beginner, and what will throw him off?

Twinner in ZFI has told us he can't handle "nothing exists", as it flies in the face of his experience of living in a body and having a personality. A simple misunderstanding.

But as long as beginners will get intimated by a terminology that is usually ad hoc misunderstood in the West, then we will continue losing some newcomers.

And who wants this result?
I feel, we should not talk in insider lingo to those who are not prepared to deal with terms like this.

That is basically my whole point.

It would also be helpful to explain words like 'not self', 'anatta' and 'shunyata' with beginners if they are not familiar with them.

A good ol' e sangha rule was to add a short explanation in brackets, and I kindly suggest we do that here in "discovering Theravada " as well.

[Shonin]

Twinner in ZFI has told us he can't handle "nothing exists", as it flies in the face of his experience of living in a body and having a personality. A simple misunderstanding.

But as long as beginners will get intimated by a terminology that is usually ad hoc misunderstood in the West, then we will continue losing some newcomers.

And who wants this result?
I feel, we should not talk in insider lingo to those who are not prepared to deal with terms like this.

That is basically my whole point.

It would also be helpful to explain words like 'not self', 'anatta' and 'shunyata' with beginners if they are not familiar with them.

A good ol' e sangha rule was to add a short explanation in brackets, and I kindly suggest we do that here in "discovering Theravada " as well.

Good idea

[PeterB]

You see Shonin I am of the school that says that THE Buddha taught " No Soul " ( an-atman ) , not no self. I reached that conclusion afer long deliberation. Thats what makes sense to me. You and others are free to reach different conclusions.

[PeterB]

While not disageeing with your point Anna can I just say that " lingo " is slightly perjorative in this context...lingo translates as "jargon" and I dont think its that.

[Shonin]

You see Shonin I am of the school that says that THE Buddha taught " No Soul " ( an-atman ) , not no self. I reached that conclusion afer long deliberation. Thats what makes sense to me. You and others are free to reach different conclusions.

Yes, but do we? Or are we just using different words?

On this point, I think that it's pretty clear that it's the latter . For me what is important is what terms are the clearest. And I'd argue that 'no soul' is open to much misinterpretation too and that 'self' (with some explanation) is pretty clear and has the advantage of being a literal translation of 'atta'.

But yes 'no soul' is another valid way of saying it.

[kannada]

When some spiritual dudes explained to me, in my beginner's days:

"Nothing exists."

--I thought: B$.
Obviously I exist, especially when my body is aching I know it for sure.

Back then, -and I still see it happening to others today, "nothing exists", is the ONE sentence that, tossed into the arena without an explanation, throws people off, before they even get a chance to get to know the teachings of the Buddha.

Therefore, I find it a dangerous sentence, which should be avoided when dealing with unprepared minds.

It makes absolutely no sense to them, and brings Buddhism into discredit.

(From another Forum) And where did you get the idea that nothing exists? I broke my little toe on the base of a bed once, how did that happen? Clearly things exist in that sense.
EDIT TO ADD: They just don't exist in an absolute sense. In fact, if my toe existed in an absolute sense it would be permanent and unchanging and thus would have been impossible to break.

Can we discuss and clarify "existence and non-existence" in a beginner friendly way here?

with metta,

Anna

Hi Anna,
'Things', 'existence', 'reality' etc are all products of assertion - that (nama(h)) is their only 'reality'. Where there is assertion there is 'existence' - as the thing-in-itself. Where there is no assertion there is no existent 'thing'.

However this is light years from the erroneous (and philosophically inept) notion that "nothing exists" for the statement implies that an existent can be made from nothing, i.e. nothing actually exists.

k

[Annapurna]

While not disageeing with your point Anna can I just say that " lingo " is slightly perjorative in this context...lingo translates as "jargon" and I dont think its that.

Sure, thank you. I admit some English subtleties are still escaping me, but I go after them with a club....

[Annapurna]

When some spiritual dudes explained to me, in my beginner's days:

"Nothing exists."

--I thought: B$.
Obviously I exist, especially when my body is aching I know it for sure.

Back then, -and I still see it happening to others today, "nothing exists", is the ONE sentence that, tossed into the arena without an explanation, throws people off, before they even get a chance to get to know the teachings of the Buddha.

Therefore, I find it a dangerous sentence, which should be avoided when dealing with unprepared minds.

It makes absolutely no sense to them, and brings Buddhism into discredit.

(From another Forum) And where did you get the idea that nothing exists? I broke my little toe on the base of a bed once, how did that happen? Clearly things exist in that sense.
EDIT TO ADD: They just don't exist in an absolute sense. In fact, if my toe existed in an absolute sense it would be permanent and unchanging and thus would have been impossible to break.

Can we discuss and clarify "existence and non-existence" in a beginner friendly way here?

with metta,

Anna

Hi Anna,
'Things', 'existence', 'reality' etc are all products of assertion - that (nama(h)) is their only 'reality'. Where there is assertion there is 'existence' - as the thing-in-itself. Where there is no assertion there is no existent 'thing'.

However this is light years from the erroneous (and philosophically inept) notion that "nothing exists" for the statement implies that an existent can be made from nothing, i.e. nothing actually exists.

k

What is (nama(h))?

Where there is assertion there is 'existence' - as the thing-in-itself. Where there is no assertion there is no existent 'thing'.

That's again one of the things I can't warp my mind around.

A tree does exist, whether I assert that it is or not, right?