"There's no self": a sutta says
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
The key words are "constant, permanent, eternal", and not the aggregates. There is nothing that is "constant, permanent, eternal" which exists.
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
You're dealing with a translation, here's the Pāli: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".
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...
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
All my friends / teachers,
Thanks a lot, very interesting reasonings.
Thanks a lot, very interesting reasonings.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
https://suttacentral.net/an4.49/en/sujato
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.
suffering as happiness, hmmAnicce 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.
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.
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
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.
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?This has already been answered via the Blessed One's words...
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?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"?
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?
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
Greetings Circle5,
Metta,
Paul.
Please show us a sutta that demonstrates he says they cannot be said to exist because we can notice their arising. I'll wait.
Find a sutta quote that demonstrates that this is the Buddha's reasoning on this matter. I'll wait.
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.
"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."
- Manopubbangama
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:17 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania Route 969 *Europe*
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
I thought we don't have to have our Buddhism be about sutta-fundamentalism?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:32 pm Greetings Circle5,
Please show us a sutta that demonstrates he says they cannot be said to exist because we can notice their arising. I'll wait.
If doodooot and you you can reject suttas at any time why do others need to show suttas as evidence?
Aren't we still awaiting the criteria of validity from you on what is true buddhavacana and what is not?, Paul?
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
Greetings Manopubbangama,
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.
Metta,
Paul.
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.Manopubbangama wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:17 pm I thought we don't have to have our Buddhism be about sutta-fundamentalism?
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.
Metta,
Paul.
"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."
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
You see, this is why I asked you my previous question: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 again confirmed that you believe this view is correct, and you quoted out this passage to show why you believe it is correct:So you share Buddha view, that's great. But why do you share this view?
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.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.
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.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: "There's no self": a sutta says
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...
Metta,
Paul.
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...
Metta,
Paul.
"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."
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
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".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".
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
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
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?
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
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
Thank you very very much for writing these sentences.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: THERE'S NO SELF: a sutta says
Greetings DooDoot,
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.
Indeed, it is challenging when there are extra layers of translations, with extra opportunity for the message to be inadvertently skewed.
This comment of yours, plus this one to Circle5...
... 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.
"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."
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: "There's no self": a sutta says
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
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,
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
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,
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa