Can you remember the sutta in AN?
I take it to mean that while self-view persists, none of these “things” can be seen ( experienced? ) directly. I’m not sure MN1 says much about what these “things” actually are though!
I believe he changed it globally. But an example that is somewhat similar to MN 1 in content is AN 4.24. Then there is AN 4.185.
2 Likes
Thanks.
I don’t know, I think the point is that the very act of forming concepts already changes things, and this applies to any form of conceiving (yena yena hi maññanti …).
1 Like
I am not sure why you say the things or phenomena described cannot be directly perceived and experienced ? Self-view can’t block perceiving the solidity of earth or the refinement of a formless absorption and developing attachment to such things. The Buddha attained the formless jhanas very early in his path, but attained liberation from self-view much later.
Having attachment to a conception of Nibbana with some trace of self-view can also happen. From SN 22.89 :
So even though it can be intellectually understood that eradicating attachment and notions of self is Nibbana, it is not enough.
This subtle desire also needs to be eradicated to truly attain Nibbana. And apparently Khemaka became an Arahant while describing his predicament. 
I think this is the kind of attachment that the Buddha is explaining in MN 1. @Brahmali Ven, is this understanding correct ?
The first part of MN 1 is about how an ordinary person relates the sense of self to a variety of phenomena. It is clear from this description how sticky this sense of self is, in that it will always find something to identify with, even a misconceived version of Nibbāna! This is one reason we have to tread so carefully with how we understand Nibbāna, because most of the time the sense of self will hijack our understanding and lead us astray. And as you rightly point out, no amount of intellectual understanding can eradicate such a deep-seated “notions of self”. Only insight can do this.
When it comes to SN 22.89 and Ven. Khemaka, the situation is a little different. Here Khemaka is already at least a stream-enterer. A stream-enterer has right view and so they would not “see” a self in relation to any of the categories described in MN 1. So, for instance, if you ask a stream-enterer about the existence of such a self, they would deny it. However, their right view does not yet fully inform all aspect of their mental life, and so they may still misperceive a self. The noble person who is not yet an arahant is in fact training to overcome this kind of misperception. In regard to this, MN 1 says the following:
Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is in higher training, whose mind has not yet reached the goal, and who is still aspiring to the supreme security from bondage, directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he should not conceive himself as earth, he should not conceive himself in earth, he should not conceive himself apart from earth, he should not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he should not delight in earth.
This is what Khemaka is doing. He has right view, but he training to eliminate all misperception.
Is this what you were asking?
7 Likes
Yes, thanks for clarifying.
1 Like
I don’t think a stream-enterer would deny the existence of such a self. To me, he clearly understands and sees that wherever “I, me, my, mine” exists (even with nibbana), sufferings will be there even though he still not be able to completely uproot that “I, me, my, mine” tendency. In other word, wherever he sees himself (of that, in that or out of that), he will suffer. However, this does not mean he does not exist!
In MN 1, we can see that a stream-enterer must fully understand this.
Why is that? Because he must fully understand it, I say.
If a stream-enterer would deny the existence of such a self then we can safely say there is no self, but I do not see the Buddha ever says so.
Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of “such a self”? Can we safely say there is no self or the self does not exist?
1 Like
By “such a self” I mean a self in relation to the five aspects of personality, the khandhas. The Buddha clearly denies that such a self exists. And if there is no self in relation to the five khandhas, then there cannot be any self at all. You still exist, but in a different way from what you think.
3 Likes
The places that are generally considered as self (through ignorance) are the five aggregates. Through contemplation and vipassana meditation it becomes possible to see that the five aggregates cannot be considered as Self. That is not to say the five aggregates does not exist.
I might add, that it is important to understand that there is nothing can be considered the self out side of the five aggregates, or anywhere else either, less we fall into misperceptions of eternal Self/soul. In short, there are phenomena out there (that we by mistake considered the self), but not one of those phenomena can be in reality considered the self.
with metta
Thanks for your response, I am wondering if you could clarify what are the differences between the so-called self and the self relates to the khandhas?
Whenever I identify “I”, I see “form and/or feeling, perception, volition formations, consciousness” and nothing else.
I am 6 feet tall. I see this form as “I”
I am sad. I see that feeling as “I” or “my feeling” …
Of course, that “I” is a changing identity, but it represents the so-called “self” at that moment.
To me, the self is simply the representative of “form and/or other khandhas”.
In AN 6.38
“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”
“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one—moving forward by himself, moving back by himself —say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer.
What are the differences between this self-doer and the so-called self relates to the khandhas?
What is this “you” if there is no self? What can this “you” do if it is different than what we normally think?
Thanks, I do not see that too.
In the suttas the sense of self is normally related to the five khandhas. This is why it is natural to speak about it in this way. But there is no difference between the two, because all sense of self must relate to the five khandhas one way or another.
I am not sure what you mean by this. It would probably be better to say that “the sense of self”, not “the self”, takes one or more of the five khandhas as its identity.
First of all “self-doer” is a confusing translation. Here is Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation:
“Master Gotama, I hold such a thesis and view as this: ‘There is no self-initiative; there is no initiative taken by others.’”
“Brahmin, I have never seen or heard of anyone holding such a thesis and view as this. For how can one who comes on his own and returns on his own say: ‘There is no self-initiative; there is no initiative taken by others’?
(1) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of instigation exist?”
“Yes, sir.”
“When the element of instigation exists, are beings seen to instigate activity?”
“Yes, sir.”
“When beings are seen to instigate activity because the element of instigation exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.
This passage does not concern “a self”. The word attā here is the relative pronoun meaning “oneself”, “yourself”, etc. The brahmin here is saying that there is no action done by oneself, nor by others. This does not relate to whether there is a self or not, in the sense of a permanent essence.
This “you” is the personal continuation of habits, memories, and kamma. It is your particular stream of consciousness as it evolves over time, and from life to life. There is no permanent essence there, but there is a degree of continuity.
4 Likes
It seems to me that you take “self” as a permanent essence while I do not see that way. What I consider “self” is whatever represents “I, me, my, mine, myself” regardless of what it is or how it is.
“I am fat”
As long as “form” is taken as “I”, the so-called self exists since form exists even if form is impermanent. That’s what I see by my understanding of self.
With my understanding of self, I can see how self is constructed in MN 1 and how we should avoid that to end self-view and reach our goal. However, I respect your take of self as a permanent essence so I will not question that view.
Thanks for your explanation, Venerable.
1 Like
There is no permanent self or an impermanent self.
1 Like
This is how I understand it too. There is a continuation of Samsara due to our ignorance. Samsara continues due to Dependent Origination. What we identify as self is the continuation of Samsara fueled by our action due to our ignorance.
Perhaps if we replace the word “self” with “ignorance” it may make bit more sense.
This is from a translation of Ajahn Chah
About this mind…. In truth there is nothing really wrong
with it. It is intrinsically pure. Within itself it’s already
peaceful. That the mind is not peaceful these days is because
it follows moods. The real mind doesn’t have anything
to it, it is simply (an aspect of) Nature. It becomes
peaceful or agitated because moods deceive it.
How does this fit in?
Perhaps this is another topic named what is luminous mind.
“Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements.” {I,v,9}
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.” {I,v,10}
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind.” {I,vi,1}
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind.” {I,vi,2}>
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.049.than.html
The Dalai Lama said something similar:
( from “How to practice”, page 173 )
“The faulty defilements that pollute the mind - such as ignorance, lust and hatred - are temporary, and therefore separable from the mind. Once these defilements are understood to be superficial and not in the minds basic nature, we see that the deep nature of mind is clear light, emptiness.”
Just light- not Self.
with metta,