Why Is There Anything At All?

[dicsoncandra]

a permanent self that gets destroyed at death permanently

no self is a self doctrine


just saying

Because it is held with clinging, with assumption there is 'no-self' when it is that 'self' (conditioned by clinging via DO) which is holding on to that view rooted in vibhava-tanha.

Edit: DO states that the 'self' is real, but only to the extent of clinging that is present

[cappuccino]

a permanent self that gets destroyed at death permanently

no self is a self doctrine


just saying

Because it is held with clinging, with assumption

thinking in terms of self or no self is a self doctrine

[dicsoncandra]

no self is a self doctrine


just saying

Because it is held with clinging, with assumption

thinking in terms of self or no self is a self doctrine

Exactly, so DO is the middle way. It states that the self is real and does exist but it is conditioned with the presence of clinging. Holding a view that there is no self is wrong view, held with clinging (self is there) rooted in vibhava-tanha, hence it is a self doctrine

[cappuccino]

the self is real and does exist but

No…

[dicsoncandra]

the self is real and does exist but

No…

Read the suttas and just contemplate on it. What dependent origination means... it's a principle of conditionality.. give yourself more time to understand and not resort to assumptions

[cappuccino]

the self is real and does exist but

No…

Read the suttas and just contemplate on it. What dependent origination means... it's a principle of conditionality.. give yourself more time to understand and not resort to assumptions

Still no…

[dicsoncandra]

No…

Read the suttas and just contemplate on it. What dependent origination means... it's a principle of conditionality.. give yourself more time to understand and not resort to assumptions

Still no…

So explain clearly then how the explanation I gave is a 'no...'?

[cappuccino]

Read the suttas and just contemplate on it. What dependent origination means... it's a principle of conditionality.. give yourself more time to understand and not resort to assumptions

Still no…

So explain clearly then how the explanation I gave is a 'no...'?

focus on the kitchen sink


that's my advice

[dicsoncandra]

Still no…

So explain clearly then how the explanation I gave is a 'no...'?

focus on the kitchen sink


that's my advice

Cool, your non-transparency isn't helping you along the path.

All the best

Regards

[dicsoncandra]

Sartre attempted to answer this question using the phenomenonological approach. Here’s some background from the wiki on “Being and Nothingness”.

Based on an examination of the nature of phenomena, he describes the nature of two types of being, being-in-itself (the being of things) and being-for-itself. While being-in-itself is something that can only be approximated by human being, being-for-itself is the being of consciousness.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_and_Nothingness

Every question brings up the possibility of a negative answer, of non-being, e.g. "Who is entering? No one." For Sartre, this is how nothingness can exist at all.

Interesting for the fact that Nothingness is a meditative attainment in Buddhism. Sartre also saw that it was a type of “being”.

Phenomenological ontology:
In Sartre's opinion, consciousness does not make sense by itself: it arises only as an awareness of objects. Consciousness is therefore always and essentially consciousness of something, whether this "something" is a thing, a person, an imaginary object, etc.

And there’s the concept/ question you’re inquiring into: being-in-itself

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_in_itself

In Sartrean existentialism, being-in-itself (être-en-soi) is also contrasted with the being of persons, which he describes as a combination of, or vacillation or tension between, being-for-itself (être-pour-soi) and being-for-others (I'être-pour-autrui).[citation needed]

Being-in-itself refers to objects in the external world — a mode of existence that simply is. It is not conscious so it is neither active nor passive and harbors no potentiality for transcendence. This mode of being is relevant to inanimate objects, but not to humans, who Sartre says must always make a choice.[1]

Sartre is careful to never go into what being-in-itself “is”. He refers to it as “a plethora of being”. Something you might find in the attainment of “neither perception nor non perception”.

But Sartre does state that (at some place in the universe) being-in-itself had an upsurge in which it tried to “establish” itself by reflecting upon itself. There was a necessary upsurge where “being-in-itself-for-itself” was attempted.

Now, being in itself successfully created a “reflection” of itself. But that immediately caused the in-itself to be exactly what it was not - “an appearance”. This created a great division.

By causing itself to arise as an appearance, the “being-for-itself” came into “the picture”. The being-for-itself was able to be conscious of the “appearance” of being-in-itself. In no way was this consciousness “being-in-itself” (nor was the appearance. The appearance simply was consciousness - a for-itself on the face of the in-itself).

But that’s how the whole thing started. Being-in-itself attempted to “understand its own reality” and failed - in the process giving rise to appearance and consciousness which are simply nothingnesses on the face of reality.

We are nothingness. And this is the source of our anguish. Because we must always choose to be something that we are not - and not be something that we are.

The origins of the in-itself are never discussed. Only the relationship between appearance and consciousness on the face of an unknowable “plethora of being” (which, incidentally has no way of knowing itself. We, as humans, approximate it. Unless we transcend it. Ie. cessation of perception and feeling).

Hi Pondera,

Thanks for your answer. I find the existentialist approach to be relevant and quite important as it helps us assess reality through our experience as they come to be. However, it is only through the principle of DO that one can understand how one come to be, so the Buddha's help is needed in that sense. It's intriguing what you have got over here but personally I don't see the parallel between what Sartre described and the meditative experience of 'nothingness' and beyond

Regards

[dicsoncandra]

With the ceasing of upādāna, bhava ceases.

I know, the result is not annihilation

Yes, but this assumption is to be abandoned too':'

one cannot be destroyed


even sneakily

May us just focus on the practice, that's all

Metta

Dicson

Hi cappuccino,

I noticed there might have been a misunderstanding since I forgot to put a colon over here, see correction above. It is referring to the quotation below and not to the one above.

Well, anyways, I think I have made it pretty clear that it is neither annihilationism nor eternalism. DO is the middle way that leads to Nibbana and there is not a notion of 'I', 'myself' or 'mine' without upādāna.

Regards

[cappuccino]

I think I have made it pretty clear that it is neither annihilationism nor eternalism.

nor is it annihilation except not because there is no self

[dicsoncandra]

I think I have made it pretty clear that it is neither annihilationism nor eternalism.

nor is it annihilation except not because there is no self

the Buddha made it clear that the self (bhava) exists with the presence of clinging with regard to the five aggregates. clinging is that which is conditioned by craving (for sense pleasure/existence/non-existence). craving is rooted in any one of the three unwholesome roots (i.e. greed, aversion, delusion) in regard to the presently enduring feeling whether pleasant, painful or neutral. since feeling is that which is dependently arisen and is fundamentally beyond one's control, one who sees this law of dependent origination abandons craving because it is essentially futile and only perpetuates the suffering caused by the misperception that the aggregates are within one's control.

without craving, clinging is not. without clinging, bhava (the self) is not. without the self, birth is not. without birth, old age-sickness-death is not. the self exists conditionally on its sustenance. without its sustenance, it is not. without it, existence doesn't apply; non-existence doesn't apply; neither doesn't apply; both doesn't apply. the self is dependent on the five aggregates that are already present as dependently arisen phenomena, which are of the nature of impermanence, unsatisfactory and not-self. this can be verified with personal experience: birth is beyond one's control, old age is beyond one's control, sickness is beyond one's control, death is beyond one's control. why? because the self is that which is dependent on dependently arisen phenomena.

[cappuccino]

without clinging, bhava (the self) is not

"Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.


On Self, No Self, and Not-self

[dicsoncandra]

without clinging, bhava (the self) is not

"Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.


On Self, No Self, and Not-self

thank you for this, it further proves my point:

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"


"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

first bolded sentence: exactly the dependent origination i wrote about

second bolded sentence: see, because Vacchagotta wouldn't have understood dependent origination and turned annihilationist as a result. Vacchagotta's view is black and white: either the self exists or it doesn't. He wouldn't have understood that the self is dependently originated.

Any more suttas to further prove my explanation? much appreciated