xabir = Soh
krodha = Kyle Dixon
If there is no self, who is doing the thinking, who is doing the hurting? : Buddhism (reddit.com)If there is no self, who is doing the thinking, who is doing the hurting? : Buddhism (reddit.com)
User avatar
level 1
krodha
·
4 days ago
If there is no self, if our actions are conditioned by dependent origination, then where does ethical conduct come in?
It is true that ultimately there are no entities, a personal self included, however relatively from the standpoint of our ignorance, a self and other beings do appear. From that standpoint suffering appears very real for us as selves, and other apparent beings also misconceive of a self and suffer. Thus there are these two truths in a way, which ends up being an important aspect of Mahāyāna Buddhism.
True compassion in Buddhism is the acknowledgment and recognition that sentient beings suffer because they are ignorant of the ultimate truth of mind and phenomena.
It is important to uphold conventionally ethical conduct because we should respect other beings, even if those beings are not ultimately real, they do not recognize that, and unless you are dwelling in the awakened equipoise of an ārya, you experience a self and experience other beings, there is no reason to deny that you are experiencing this. Even if āryas in equipoise and Buddhas do not experience such things.
12
foowfoowfoow
·
4 days ago
It's not 'no self'. Rather, it's: devoid of ('an') any intrinsic essence ('atta').
The Buddha never said there is no self. He said that one who considers 'I have no self' attends inappropriately, and is lost in the thicket off views that keep us in samsara.
Instead, the Buddha said that the aggregates, the sense bases, the elements, sense objects, contact and craving are not us or ours, and are without intrinsic essence. Because they are impermanent, they have no real true lasting or reliable nature or essence.
Anatta, not-self: the absence of intrinsic essence
4
User avatar
level 2
krodha
·
4 days ago
The Buddha never said there is no self.
Yes, he did. Quite frequently.
3
User avatar
level 3
foowfoowfoow
·
4 days ago
·
edited 4 days ago
For your edification, there are references in my link to the Buddha's suttas where he cautions against the view 'I have no self'. I can provide more if you need.
Please post a reference to the Buddha's suttas where you think he says what you contend.
Thank you.
1
User avatar
level 1
krodha
·
4 days ago
For your edification, there are references in my link to the Buddha's suttas where he cautions against the view 'I have no self'. I can provide more if you need.
The Buddha only cautioned against clinging to the inferential conceptual conclusion “I have no self.”
Please post a reference to the Buddha's suttas where you think he says what you contend.
Just read the Buddha’s words without the stupid Thanissaro logic influencing you.
3
User avatar
level 2
genivelo
·
3 days ago
Tibetan Buddhism
I agree it would be helpful if you posted references to where the Buddha said there is no self.
1
User avatar
level 3
krodha
·
3 days ago
The sole and entire import of the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus is to establish that there is no entity at the core of our psychophysical experience. That, coupled with the glaring statement “sabbe dhamma anatta” or all dharmas both conditioned and unconditioned are devoid of a self is quite clear despite the attempts of some scholar-monks to muddy the waters.
This idea that the Buddha did not make this assertion, or that the burden of proof belongs to those who understand that there is no self or essence in any phenomena, is frankly a bit insane. These people are degrading the Buddha’s teaching which is again, explicitly clear that the perception of a self is false, leads to suffering, and those who desire liberation must recognize selflessness and familiarize themselves with that dimension of realization.
Everyone who challenges the absence of self is misreading the suttas and is conflating contexts.
2
User avatar
level 4
genivelo
·
3 days ago
Tibetan Buddhism
I am trying to put myself in OP's shoes, not the user you are discussing with, since that discussion is not going anywhere. I am not sure the way you are presenting your position gives them enough context to understand your point.
1
User avatar
level 5
foowfoowfoow
·
2 days ago
·
edited 2 days ago
In further clarification of what i have commented above, for any who may be interested:
The Buddha never taught that the purpose of his teaching was to realise there is no entity at the core of our experience. He equally did not teach that there is a self. Rather, the Buddha taught his teaching solely for the ending of suffering.
He had good reasons for stating that a bhikkhu should consider neither 'i have no self', nor equally 'i have a self'. The primary reason for this is that such considerations lead one away from the path - they are inappropriate attention for the job at hand, the ending of suffering.
The purpose of the teaching is not to realise that there is no self - this is directly counter to the Buddha's words. Rather, it is to look at the parts of us - the aggregates, the elements, the sense bases, and to realise that they are not-self. We throw away the bathwater, and disregard the baby.
The Buddha also cautions that to consider that one has no self leads to an annihilationist viewpoint. One can see that considering 'i have no self' can possibly lead to depression, nihilism, and anger, rather than leading one to peace, calm, internal certainty, stability and composure.
The conclusion 'i have no self' oversteps the Buddha's teaching. It is a subtle point, but a very important one.
It can end in one's mind taking on an identity around having no self, in one attaching to a view that 'i have no self', to one's detriment.
Best wishes.
0
level 6
xabir
·
2 days ago
This is a good article: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/uf1kwd/if_there_is_no_self_who_is_doing_the_thinking_who/i6xcsif/?context=3
Quote:
" I think that by considering this meaning of stream-entry, this might help some people on the path in evaluating where they are, and their capacity to eliminate fetters. For instance, if this strict interpretation of stream-entry (three fetters, thorough realization of selflessness and conditionality) is indeed correct, then it must be the prerequisite to actually permanently eliminating/uprooting the later fetters (sensual desire, ill-will...etc), since the first three fetters must be uprooted first by necessity before the latter ones can be permanently uprooted:
"First, Susima, comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma [conditionality and selflessness], afterwards knowledge of Nibbana."
SN 12.70"
Also:
onds0:1l93Agt 2 i A0h41 41iraaM36p · Shared with Your friends
Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful, eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.
One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.
— Sutta Nipāta 5.15, Mogharājamāṇavapucchā
Shared with Your friends
AN 7.49 Dutiyasaññā Sutta, the Buddha said:
‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said?
Monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated.
1
User avatar
level 7
foowfoowfoow
·
1 day ago
My point is that saying 'I have no self' is "I-making". It is the assumption of a view.
Rooting out the self view doesn't involve replacing it with another self-view of no self.
Stating 'I have no self' is literally that latter case - for one who thinks like this, this becomes another view that needs to be defended. It's the self masquerading as no self.
1
level 8
xabir
·
1 day ago
The realization of anatman is the realization that self/Self in all ways, shapes and forms are illusory and false. It is not "I have no self" but a seeing through of any form of self/Self, including a seer and witness of experience* and all other possible views abuot self, such that there is a clear seeing as Vajira wrote,
"Why now do you assume 'a being'?Mara, have you grasped a view?This is a heap of sheer constructions:Here no being is found.Just as, with an assemblage of parts,The word 'chariot' is used,So, when the aggregates are present,There's the convention 'a being.'It's only suffering that comes to be,Suffering that stands and falls away.Nothing but suffering comes to be,Nothing but suffering ceases."
So in fact, it is indeed "to realise there is no entity at the core of our experience", and this wisdom and recognition when given rise and cultivated will lead to release, death-free, nibbana, end of identification and clinging, end of proliferation and appropriation, so on and so forth.
Buddha in Anuradha Sutta:"Then, Anuraadha, since in this verylife the Tathaagata is not to be regarded as really and truly existing,is it proper for you to declare of him: 'Friends, he who is aTathaagata... can be described otherwise than in these fourways...'?"[5]"No indeed, Lord.""Good, good, Anuraadha. As before, so now I proclaim just suffering and the ceasing of suffering." - https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.wlsh.html
*All six views of self:
“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him.The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; orthe view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established;or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true andestablished; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in himas true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view asthis: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experienceshere and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mineis permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it willendure as long as eternity.’ This speculative view, bhikkhus, is calledthe thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views,the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter ofviews, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing,and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; he is notfreed from suffering, I say.
- https://suttacentral.net/mn2/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false
1
foowfoowfoow
·
3 hr. ago
·
edited 2 hr. ago
The realization of anatman is the realization that self/Self in all ways, shapes and forms are illusory and false.
I believe it's more than this. Anatta is one of the three characteristics that apply to all conditioned things - not just the self.
How then does anatta apply to a rock, a grain of sand, an atom? It is not sensible to say that rock, or the North Pole, or the White House, is not me or mine, or no self of mine. Anatta is more than selflessness.
Anatta applies to all conditioned things - the sense bases and the sense objects themselves (as well as the aggregates, the elements, contact, craving). This is why 'the absence of any intrinsic essence' comprehensively covers anatta.
An understanding of anatta is not the removal of the fetter of sakkaya-ditthi. They are distinct and should not be conflated.
It is not "I have no self" but a seeing through of any form of self/Self, including a seer and witness of experience* and all other possible views abuot self
I agree with what you say here, but I'd note that that very statement ("anatta is not 'I have no self'") was disagreed with by your mentor in the above comment.
In addition, I'd note that the quote you've provided from Vajira above agrees exactly with what i have said above: anatta, not-self, is understood by looking at the parts of us, and seeing how they are not-self and without intrinsic essence.
Nowhere in that quote does it say one should consider 'I have no self'. Further the Buddha explicitly states that one should not take up that view.
The translation you have used for SN 22.86 is not literal. You might want to see this link for a more literal one:
SN 22.86 suttacentral, with pali
Compare:
Anuraadha, since in this very life the Tathaagata is not to be regarded as really and truly existing (Walshe)
With:
And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life (Thanissaro)
In that case, Anurādha, since you don’t acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact in the present life (Sujato)
But, Anuradha, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life (Bodhi)
The meaning of the Pali is that the Buddha is not to be regarded as a "real or certain phenomenon" (dhamme saccato thetato).
The MN 2 quote you have provided is the very one in which the Buddha states 'I have no self' is inappropriate attention.
The Buddha is telling us 'I have no self' and 'I have a self' are equally inappropriate attention. They both distract us with a sense of self - the nihilist who says 'I have no self ' is still stuck in samsara, fooled by a negated view of the self, just as he who says 'I have a self' is fooled by an affirmative sense of self. It's a very subtle point, that can only be grasped by considering the parts of us as not- self: not me, not mine, and without intrinsic essence.
I feel that we are actually in agreement with what we are saying here /u/xabir ... As I've said before, I'm happy to discuss this privately if you wish.
Best wishes - be well.
1
level 2
xabir
·
11 min. ago
Anatta, unlike the other two seals, covers both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena such as cessation or unbinding [nirvana]. (The three marks are: sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent" sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory" sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self" https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwji_JSwlMb3AhXCmuYKHdlvBUkQFnoECAwQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThree_marks_of_existence&usg=AOvVaw0zJ_UvB957Jv1sHHe5M8-V )
An intellectual understanding of anatta and the other three seals is not realization or stream entry, but a direct realization of anatta and the other three seals is indeed realization of stream entry.*
In fact, if anatta is thoroughly realized and fully actualized, that is arahantship. How do we know? Buddha's first five monks attained arahantship after hearing the second discourse by Buddha -- anattalakkhana sutta. Countless others attained arahantship during discourses on anatta. Including the famous Bahiya and many others.
So one must take the doctrine super seriously because this is what leads to nirvana. (Of course this is not just a 'doctrine' but a living truth -- realize it!) Do not overlook or underestimate it. All three seals are linked and cannot be missed.. along with dependent origination.
I believe nobody is asserting 'I have no self' since this statement implies that there is an I.
I have no problem with 'the absence of any intrinsic essence' in fact I like this term.
* The Eye
Cakkhu Sutta (SN 25:1)
Near Sāvatthī. “Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear… The nose… The tongue… The body… The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
“One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry ghosts. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
“One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry ghosts. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
“One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening.”
1
level 3
xabir
·
4 min. ago
Some students attained stream entry while being discoursed on anatman, https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_74.html
While some students attained arahantship while being discoursed on the same topic of anatman https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_75.html
It also depends on student‘s capacity
1
Posts
