"There's no self": a sutta says

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by budo »

The key words are "constant, permanent, eternal", and not the aggregates. There is nothing that is "constant, permanent, eternal" which exists.
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by piotr »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:13 pm⬤ It is very interesting to see the absolute wordings: "no self" and "what is without self", ⬤ where some others would just replace them with conveniently manipulatable and easily digestible "not-self".
You're dealing with a translation, here's the Pāli:

Anicce niccasaññino dukkhe ca sukhasaññino,
Anattani ca attāti asubhe subhasaññino.


And BTW I'm not saying that the translation is somehow wrong. I'm just pointing out that this is not some special verse which might prove that "self doesn't exist".
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1317
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

All my friends / teachers,
Thanks a lot, very interesting reasonings.
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
auto
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by auto »

https://suttacentral.net/an4.49/en/sujato
Anicce niccasaññino,
dukkhe ca sukhasaññino;
Anattani ca attāti,
asubhe subhasaññino;
Micchādiṭṭhihatā sattā,
khittacittā visaññino.

Perceiving impermanence as permanence,
suffering as happiness,
not-self as self,
and ugliness as beauty—
sentient beings are ruined by wrong view,
deranged, out of their mind.
suffering as happiness, hmm

it is possible it is that at first it is felt good then it is felt bad feeling as afterwave or "coming down of a trip"; the good feeling was the origin for bad feeling. Through cultivation you progress to citta where when seeing an object what produces(contact happen) that good feeling there instead will be a bad feeling.
The untrained person perceives the good as bad or suffering as happiness.

then the anattani ca attāti follows similar reasoning. The ti, at the end of a word attāti refer to the third incursion where contact happen, that contact allows to see ore(not yet ironed) status. Anattani is a ore state and its seen as fleshed out finished product by the untrained.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by Circle5 »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:58 am Because it is correct, and in accord with how things are - i.e. it is Dhamma.
This has already been answered via the Blessed One's words...
So you agree with the Buddha that claiming inconstant feeling, inconstant perceptions, inconstant form, etc. can not be said not to exist, because we can notice their arising? Is this the same reasoning you are following when you say that you agree with the Buddha on this matter? The reasoning that you can notice their arising?
If that is your conviction, then why do you insist on involvement with that by which the wise do not become involved? For what benefit are such "attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions"?
With 10.000 pages of suttas, with the no-self teaching being the most fundamental teaching of Buddhism, with 5 topics getting combined into this one 1 hour ago due to having too many no-self topics on the front page, you are claiming Buddha did his best to avoid this topic and had an eerrr-wriggler position when it came to it? Isn't this a little insulting to those of us who have bothered to read some of those 10.000 pages of suttas?

But leaving aside what Buddha had to say about the problem, tell me what you Retrofuturist have to say about it. Is there somebody holding a gun to your head forbidding you from ever thinking a thought related to the most fundamental teaching of buddhism?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 23306
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Circle5,
Circle5 wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:19 pm So you agree with the Buddha that claiming inconstant feeling, inconstant perceptions, inconstant form, etc. can not be said not to exist, because we can notice their arising?
Please show us a sutta that demonstrates he says they cannot be said to exist because we can notice their arising. I'll wait.

:popcorn:
Circle5 wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:19 pm Is this the same reasoning you are following when you say that you agree with the Buddha on this matter? The reasoning that you can notice their arising?
Find a sutta quote that demonstrates that this is the Buddha's reasoning on this matter. I'll wait.

:popcorn:
Circle5 wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:19 pm With 10.000 pages of suttas, with the no-self teaching being the most fundamental teaching of Buddhism
False. I think you are talking about anatta - that is not "the no-self teaching". Your subsequent errors and conceptual proliferations follow consequentially from your first... in short, I disagree with your premises, and for whatever reason you're unable to comprehend mine. As there is no basis for furtherance of the discussion, it would once more be best simply to leave you with your ditthi.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
Manopubbangama
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by Manopubbangama »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:32 pm Greetings Circle5,
Circle5 wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:19 pm So you agree with the Buddha that claiming inconstant feeling, inconstant perceptions, inconstant form, etc. can not be said not to exist, because we can notice their arising?
Please show us a sutta that demonstrates he says they cannot be said to exist because we can notice their arising. I'll wait.
I thought we don't have to have our Buddhism be about sutta-fundamentalism?

If doodooot and you you can reject suttas at any time why do others need to show suttas as evidence? :shrug:

Aren't we still awaiting the criteria of validity from you on what is true buddhavacana and what is not?, Paul?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 23306
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Manopubbangama,
Manopubbangama wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:17 pm I thought we don't have to have our Buddhism be about sutta-fundamentalism?
Non-sequitur. If someone is going to be bold enough to claim to represent the Buddha's logic and reasoning, it's reasonable to ask them to substantiate it. Especially so when they also make reference to "10.000 pages of suttas" and infer a degree of familiarity with them.

Note also, this topic is about what the suttas do (or do not) say... so it's very relevant, unlike your disruptive meta-discussion, which you may now desist from.

:focus:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by Circle5 »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:32 pm Please show us a sutta that demonstrates he says they cannot be said to exist because we can notice their arising. I'll wait.
You see, this is why I asked you my previous question:
So you share Buddha view, that's great. But why do you share this view?
You again confirmed that you believe this view is correct, and you quoted out this passage to show why you believe it is correct:
But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
You answered that your opinion is based on the same argument that, since we can see the origination of impermanent feelings, origination of impermanent perceptions, origination of impermanent material form, etc. - no wise man on this world could ever claim they don't exist.

And now, you are in total opposition to this argument. This is why I asked that question in that way to begin with.
Last edited by Circle5 on Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 23306
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Circle5,

Respectfully, you clearly do not know what my argument is, nor the reasons for it, so regardless of your intentions, you are simply shadowboxing.

For whatever reason (and I'm endeavouring to politely refrain from articulating what I think it might be), you're resolved on your "attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions" and these seem to inhibit your ability to comprehend what is being said to you. This is not a value judgement or a personal attack, just a concise explanation for why I am disengaging from your further questioning, and why I now respectfully request you cease pursuing your current, incessant line of off-topic questioning because it serves no functional purpose, other than to derail this topic.

Answers that accord with my reason and meaning have been provided, and as far as I'm concerned, they conclude the matter, so please get...

:focus:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 9013
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by DooDoot »

retrofuturist wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:23 pmIt is unsurprising then, that when he comes to translate SN 22.94, he translates in accordance with his Dhamma understanding, and in doing so distorts the meaning of atthī’ti to say "it exists", when it is more appropriate for it to be translated literally as "it is". When we look at suttas like AN 1.52 and SN 22.62 which also contain the term atthī’ti, we can see that to translate it as "it exists" would lead to a non-sensical translation. Thus, unlike in SN 22.62 where Bhikkhu Bodhi translated atthī’ti correctly as "it is", we can conclude he has over-reached in SN 22.94, and fallen in with the "Everything Exists" crowd, by erroneously translating atthī’ti as "it exists".
Thanks for this Paul. I might look into the above. I have always had issues with SN 12.15 & its translations. Just last week I stumbled across a translation from Thai of Buddhadasa's translation from Pali. Note: One can never be sure what Buddhadasa said and what the translator has said but its seems for SN 12.15 Buddhadasa translated atthi & natti as "there is" & "there is not".

This said, i still struggle with the "Sabbam atthī" and "Sabbaṃ natthī" part.

“Being” and “nothing,” “existence” and nonexistence,” “I am” and “I am not” are
dualisms that we conceive and grasp. Buddha’s middle way teaching of
paṭiccasamuppāda enables us to avoid the extremes of such dualisms by rightly seeing
that the nature of all phenomena is arising and passing away. With this wisdom one does
not take a stand on “my self.”


At Sāvatthi, Ven. Kaccānagotta approached the Bhagavā, paid homage, and sat to one side. As
he was sitting there he said to the Bhagavā: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. In what
way is there right view?"

This world, Kaccāna, by and large rests in a duality: “there is” (existence) and “there is not”
(nonexistence). For one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with right wisdom, the
notion of nonexistence in regard to the world (or anything of the world) does not occur. For one
who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with right wisdom, the notion of existence in
regard to the world (or anything of the world) does not occur.

This world, Kaccāna, by and large is shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence (biases).
But one who sees (as described above) does not get involved with or cling to these
engagements, attachments, mental standpoints, adherences, biases, or obsessions; nor does one
take a stand on 'my self.” He has no uncertainty or doubt that just dukkha, when arising, is
arising; dukkha, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of
others. It's to this extent, Kaccāna, that there is right view.

“Everything exists” ("sabbamatthī"): that is one extreme. “Everything doesn't exist” ("sabbaṃ natthī"): that is a second extreme.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathāgata teaches Dhamma via the middle:
With ignorance as condition, there are concoctings; with concoctings as condition, there is
viññāṇa; … with birth as condition, aging and death, sorrow, pain, lamentation, grief, and
despair come fully into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of distress & suffering.
With the remainderless fading away and quenching of ignorance, concoctions are quenched.
With the quenching of concoctions, cognizing is quenched. … With the quenching of birth, then
aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair naturally are quenched. Such is
the quenching of this entire mass of distress and suffering.

https://www.liberationpark.org/companion.pdf
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 9013
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by DooDoot »

Circle5 wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:39 pmThe point Buddha is always trying to make is that there is no self anywhere, whatsoever...
You mean no real self. Obviously when "you" (the mind) gets angry or frustrated or feel humiliated, there is a "self" in the mind; albeit an imaginary self. Do you think beings murdering & exploiting another beings are free of self? :shrug:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1317
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

DooDoot wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:26 am
Circle5 wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:39 pmThe point Buddha is always trying to make is that there is no self anywhere, whatsoever...
You mean no real self. Obviously when "you" (the mind) gets angry or frustrated or feel humiliated, there is a "self" in the mind; albeit an imaginary self. Do you think beings murdering & exploiting another beings are free of self? :shrug:
Thank you very very much for writing these sentences.

:anjali: :anjali: :anjali:
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 23306
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings DooDoot,
DooDoot wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:49 am One can never be sure what Buddhadasa said and what the translator has said....
Indeed, it is challenging when there are extra layers of translations, with extra opportunity for the message to be inadvertently skewed.
DooDoot wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:49 am ...but its seems for SN 12.15 Buddhadasa translated atthi & natti as "there is" & "there is not".
This comment of yours, plus this one to Circle5...
DooDoot wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:49 amYou mean no real self. Obviously when "you" (the mind) gets angry or frustrated or feel humiliated, there is a "self" in the mind; albeit an imaginary self. Do you think beings murdering & exploiting another beings are free of self?
... draw our attention to that, just as there are different shades of "self", there are also different shades of "is". There is one founded upon ontological realism, which pertains to "existence" (i.e. "it exists") and there is another shade founded of phenomenal experience, which is well described by "is" (i.e. "it is").

As this distinction relates to "self", the "phenomenal" self is the one you describe to Circle5... the one that arises due to avijja, and results in jati (identification/birth). This mode of self is often described in Pali, as atta. Atta is not denied and in fact there is a whole chapter of the Dhammapada dedicated to it.

The ontological self, in contrast, is often described in Pali as atman, and it seems to be "atman" that the vociferous proponents of the "No Self" ideology are rejecting. Such rejections (or affirmations, if one is pro-atman) miss the point of the Dhamma, since the Dhamma is about what "is" (phenomenally), not "what exists" (ontologically). It is no surprise then, that the Buddha does not focus on or obsess about atman, other than to admonish and correct those that do (e.g. Vacchagotta, plus those in attendance at the speaking of the Brahmajāla Sutta).

There is a long history of the ontological and the phenomenological being conflated in this tradition, and it is part of the reason why so many people "talk past each other" when discussing deeper aspects of the Dhamma.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 1317
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: "There's no self": a sutta says

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
Hello to all my friends/teachers & thanks a lot to you,

On contemplating about the discussions, I can sense I am gradually zeroing in on what the phrase ("There is No 'No-Self' anywhere in the Buddha's teachings") actually means in the light of Absolute-Anatta.

I also sense that, sometime in the future not very far away from now, I can absolutely accept that phrase in the light of Absolute-Anatta.

I also sense that, sadly, at that time in the future, some of those who absolutely accept that phrase (as I will then) will be still at a loss about Absolute-Anatta.

Metta & Compassion,
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22
Post Reply