How can there be no-self when there seems to be a self?

[quote=“Shaun”]
Tathāgatagarbha which is sometimes seen as the same as emptiness. What do the Theravadans think of this concept, especially in the relation to anatta?
[/quote]I can’t really answer this, as it was not addressed to me, but rather addressed to “Theravadans”, but if you will forgive my intrusion into your inquiry, the Tathāgatagarbha is a Mahāyāna doctrinal point, so I figure the “Theravāda” responce will be something like: “Oh isn’t that an interesting idea? Shame the Buddha didn’t teach it.”

Truth be told, Tathāgatagarbha is a difficult concept even among Mahāyāna Buddhists (check out DharmaWheel if you want more informed and comprehensive answers about Mahāyāna teachings), sometimes (not all of the time), like in the Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtra, Tathāgatagarbha is a, and here is where the difficulty arises, essentially a violation and rebuttal of anattā (see Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtra, Tathāgatagarbha section, I forget the chapter #, I’ll look it up in a bit), however, sometimes the Tathāgatagarbha is simply a synonym for Buddha-nature.

[quote=“Mat, post:249, topic:5041”]
Michael Zimmermann, a specialist on the Tathagātagarbha Sūtra,[13] writes for instance: "the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra.[14]
[/quote]I would take Zimmermann with a grain of salt here, especially when referring to the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra. The Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtra teaches about a pseudo-ātman explicitly with significant caveats, but there is nothing of the sort explicitly stated in the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, Zimmermann is strictly going by inference here. The sūtra is widely available online, and one can see by reading it for one’s self (lol) that it is very careful about explicitly arguing for an ātman.

Apologies if this is off-topic for an EBT forum.

1 Like

I have been studying the Tathagatagarhba for a while and as a requirement for a university, I am comparing the key differences between the Mahayana and Theravada. I am going from the angle that the essence of Theravada is anatta and Mahayana is Tathagatagarhba.

"Michael Zimmermann, a specialist on the Tathagātagarbha Sūtra,[13] writes for instance: “the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, Buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra.”

Actually, most scholars such as Peter Harvey clearly explain that the Tathagatagarpbha is not a form ‘self’.

“Theravāda” response will be something like: “Oh isn’t that an interesting idea? Shame the Buddha didn’t teach it.”

But isn’t there a Tathagatagarhbha Sutta? Then we could discount all suttas?

“Truth be told, Tathāgatagarbha is a difficult concept even among Mahāyāna Buddhists”

I have to disagree with this, I have spoken with quite a few Mahayana venerables, it is not at all a difficult concept for them, it’s their core concept, it’s what their entire Buddhism is about and based on.

The most common Theravadan disagreement with the Tathagatagarhba is that it represents a ‘self’ but view just shows a lack of understanding into Mahayana Buddhism and how they think about and use the idea. As said above, none of the most well know scholars ever think it portrays a self…

With Metta.

I think the main difference between Theravada and mahayana teachings is
After the " nibbana" which is dissolution of an arahant 5 khandas is a full stop !
But , The mahayana teachings is , it emerge to continue to teach continuously ! And from starting mahayana state that
The 5 khandas itself is " not self " !
Therefore , One only eradicate the " wrong self view " , and eradicate greeds
And there is " nothing " in the First place were actually being " eradicate " !

Is there an english translation available enywhere for this MA parallel?

Not saying ‘there is no atta’ is not the same as saying that there is one. It is not possible to prove absolute nonexistence of something. I would be suprised to see such claim in the suttas. All I saw were claims that this or that or the other thing is not atta. Also that (although I’m not sure of this one) ‘atta is nowhere to be found’, but that is still different than ‘there is no atta’.

1 Like

You can find the link helpfully included in @Gabriel 's post - How can there be no-self when there seems to be a self?

So far I couldn’t collect many such claims. And still, we know that the EBT are a heterogeneous corpus of texts. The 'neti-neti’massively outweighs the minority-voice of ‘there is no atta’.

I know only very little about the early Buddhist sects but maybe this reflects different positions among them. Still it’s surprising not to find the ‘there is no atta’ in random fragments of the Anguttara.

1 Like

What gives something meaning and value is its relationship to us. If something cannot be experienced, it has no value to us. The idea of an attā is precisely that it is something of the highest value: a permanent, blissful essence that we can take as our true identity. You cannot take as your identity something you cannot experience.

5 Likes

I mostly agree with you here, maybe except the last part, since that is exactly how I saw soul. As a (part) of me, that goes to heaven or hell, but I never saw it as something I directly experience now.
But apart of that, I’m not arguing about the usefulness of concept of atta that cannot be experienced. I’m arguing for logical corectness. According to the suttas, Buddha was always very precise and careful in wording his teachings in a way that leaders of other sects would not be able to refute.
‘There is no atta’ is a huge claim, that even Buddha would not be able to hold, because it’s just an error in thinking. As Gabriel pointed, such claims are very few, which I would take as significant, and treat those suttas carefully, as possibly corrupted.

This is an interesting point to ponder upon. Who experienced this ‘soul’, to name it and define it?

SN 22.79 may help resolve this.

This is the same view as Ajahn Budhadasa, as found in his Anatta & Rebirth lecture.

It does not sound as though you have given that up. Or are you saying you have developed the same view as Ajahn Buddhadasa independently; no longer reliant upon Ajahn Buddhadasa?

[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:116, topic:5041”]
The first time I know of that we come across the idea ‘there is no doer’ which matches well the Hindu idea there is no (true) self, as separation from other is only an illusion, is in the commentaries where Bh. Buddhaghosa says: ‘There is no doer of a deed Or one who reaps the deed’s result; Phenomena alone flow on— No other view than this is right.’[/quote]

In my opinion, this idea of Buddhaghosa is moral nihilism. For an arahant, there is no doer. But for a puthujjana, it is self-attachment & ignorance that drives kamma therefore there is a ‘doer’, which is why there is a reaper of dukkha. If there was no doer & no reaper, there would also be no suffering. But there is suffering because of the (ignorant) idea of a ‘doer’.

[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:139, topic:5041”]
I believe it is wrong view to think the Buddha taught two truths: ‘conventional truth’ and ‘ultimate truth’. vis 'The Awakened One, the best of teachers, spoke of two truths, conventional and higher; no third is ascertained;…[/quote]

I will reiterate my previous reply to you.

I agree there is not two truths. There is only one truth.

What is called ‘conventional truth’ is this quote is how the putthujjana considers things to be. So it is not really the truth but only what the puttujjana believes is truth.

To be more precise, it is ‘conventional reality’, i.e., how common unenlightened people consider reality to be.

For example, if I say to you: “The Queen of England”, we both understand what his means conventionally (even though according to supramundane truth there is no real Queen of England).

[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:162, topic:5041”]
The Buddha probably said to reflect wisely on the Five Clinging Aggregates, that they are impermanent, suffering and not soul (anattā).[/quote]

The word ‘dukkha’ here does not necessarily refer to ‘suffering’. This is why many translations here refer to ‘unsatisfactoriness’, as as here by Mendis & Dhp 278 by Buddharakkhita.

For example, in SN 22.85, the five aggregates of a Buddha are said to be dukkha, which obviously means ‘unsatisfactory’ rather than ‘suffering’.

[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:162, topic:5041”]
BTW I do not say the Five Aggregates, should be reflected on as impermanent, suffering and not soul (anattā), because since there is no clinging, I think they would rightly only be reflected on as impermanent and not soul (anattā) and I think it acceptable to identify them as an impermanent, conditioned and soulless self.[/quote]

No. Even when there is no clinging, the five aggregates are impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self. They are unsatisfactory because they are incapable of bringing lasting happiness.

Regarded in this manner, the word 'dukkha’will have a different meaning in the 4NTs and 3Cs, just as the word ‘dukkha’ has a different meaning in the term ‘dukkha vedana’.

The 3Cs of conditioned phenomena are impermanence (anicca); unsatisfactoriness (dukkha); and not-self (anatta), and are universal to all conditioned things, i.e., to each of the five aggregates.

Note: Only anatta applies to Nibbana, per MN 1, for example.

:seedling:

Hello again

Thanks for that interesting sutta. Unfortunately, it does not help me, though it may help you.

I think one must decide which (interpretation of the) definition of the First Noble Truth one wishes to follow. The traditional one that assumes less than half (birth, aging and death) of the details given in the First Noble Truth is physiological, and the whole Truth has to be summarised as:

“in short the Five Aggregates are suffering” (leaving out clinging)

or, a different one that does not assume that, but rather takes into account the whole of the details (especially all the other items that would be psychological: SuttaCentral soka­pari­deva­duk­kha­do­manas­supāyā­sāpi dukkhā, appiyehi sampayogopi dukkho, piyehi vippayogopi dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ) and the repeated psychological meanings (redefinitions) the Buddha gave to key terms, clearly including ‘death’ and one then accepts the summary:

“in short the Five Clinging Aggregates are suffering”.

Since I take the second approach, after many years of testing the first approach, which you clearly follow, I do not accept teachings that promote the idea:

‘Having reflected thus, he becomes indifferent towards past form… consciousness (the Five Aggregates), he does not seek delight in past/present/future form… consciousness (the Five Aggregates), and he is practising for revulsion towards past/present/future form… consciousness (the Five Aggregates), for its fading away and cessation.’

Because, for me Nibbāna is the fading away and cessation of the Five Clinging Aggregates, not the Five Aggregates.

Since it seems you are happy with the first, I certainly doubt further conversations will be of any benefit, but to correct your misunderstandings of what I have said:

It does not sound that way to you because, I believe, you do not read clearly what I have written because your ego edits things out or adds things, to protect itself. I have said I accept multiple births (not RE-births) that are pscylological, that is, I accept the arising of ego multiple times in this very life and a different ego each time. I understand and you have confirmed that Bh. Buddhadāsa taught psychological-only-RE-birth, which I do not accept. I have given up Bh. Buddhadāsa’s teaching of psychological-only-RE-birth. Hopefully I have made it clear enough this time.

It seems I have developed this interpretation independently of any other person claiming to be a disciple of the Buddha.

at least we agree on that. :slight_smile:

To me, the rest of your post is just repetition of the traditional views/interpretations, which I don’t accept and will not discuss once again. As I feel certain you cannot provide a clear example in the First Four Nikaya of any language source, where, for example, the Buddha said ‘I teach one truth, ultimate truth/reality’ as you understand it. If you can, please do so.

Otherwise I do not wish to continue thrashing the same old arguments and hope you one day decide to step out of what I think is your (ego) comfort zone and question them.

So, it seems you agree with me that, they are not universal characteristics, but you could not say that clearly and in appreciation, establishing common ground, but rather you choose only point to difference.

My point is (once again), the first and last of the Three Characteristics (anicca, anattā) would apply to all conditioned things, including the Five Aggregates, but the second would only apply to the Five Clinging Aggregates, which are the definition of dukkha, imo, but I think you could not accept that, due to your understanding of the First Noble Truth.

I think it’s best to say goodbye and

Best wishes

So if we take sn16.12 for example.

The Tathagata exists after death
The Tathagata does not exist after death
The Tathagata both does and does not exist after death
The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death

All above are wrong views, says the Lord Buddha.

Is the Lord Buddha referring to “psychological” death here too? If so what is the status of the Tathagata right now that he is literally dead?

Can you also extrapolate the above to Brother Joe please? What would be the status of Brother Joe if he gets run over by a bus tomorrow?

Have been formally ordained? if so which Temple/Country please?

I get to see fruitcakes rejecting literal re-birth but loitering with the Dhamma quite often. Although I must admit this is the first time I come across a robed one.

Hi Rajitha

To me, your message has very inappropriate content and has been flagged.

The lack of friendliness in lack of greeting and not being able to talk to me directly, seems blatant.

It seems the Buddha taught that shame and dread protect us from unwholesome action (karma/kamma), if we have them.

I might deal with your questions some other time.

best wishes

You cannot see inside my mind. I say things with compassion. I am fully compliant with the Dhamma.

I have compassion for the Thathagatha whom you slander and also those innocents whom you mislead appearing as a Sanga.

Peddling the wrong view here quite brazenly, violating all kinds of decency, I should flag you first.

Although I wont, since flagging in itself is an act of gossip and a violation of basic precept which you would know had you been properly ordained.

Hello Brother Joe

A friend emailed me saying:

I read his essay and he doesn’t seem to be saying anything that’s particularly new.

I replied:

we disagreed on the following: Joe thinks ‘atta’ means ‘soul’ and ‘anatta’ means ‘not-soul’

Since my friend was interested in your essay, I referred them to this thread, so they could work out what your personal views about the Buddha-Dhamma are.

The sutta appears to support your views about recollecting ‘past abodes’ means recollecting past clingings. I think it is a most valuable sutta.

[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:261, topic:5041”]
the whole Truth has to be summarised as: “in short the Five Clinging Aggregates are suffering”.[/quote]

For me, ignorance clings to the aggregates rather than the aggregates cling. Apart from your using this rather confusing translation of “clinging aggregates”, members of this site including myself have posted the same view as your’s, namely, the last sentence about ‘upadana’ summarises the entire 1st noble truth. Ajahn Buddhadasa also had this view. As my friend said, you appear to not have offered anything particularly new here.

[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:261, topic:5041”]
which you clearly follow[/quote]

I certainly do not follow what you have suggested here. Apart from the confusing translation of “clinging aggregates”, respectfully, you have offered nothing new here.

For me, Nibbāna is the fading away and cessation of Clinging to the Five Aggregates. As I mentioned, I have not discovered the body, feeling, perception or consciousness aggregate clings or is clinging. Instead, I have found the sankhara aggregate, when affected by its ignorance, is doing the clinging.

[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:261, topic:5041”]
It does not sound that way to you because… I have said I accept multiple births (not RE-births) that are pscylological, that is, I accept the arising of ego multiple times in this very life and a different ego each time.[/quote]

Ajahn Buddhadasa’s view is exactly the same as your view, here, as it clearly written in his lecture called ‘Anatta & Rebirth’.

[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:261, topic:5041”]
Buddhadāsa taught psychological-only-RE-birth[/quote]

I have never heard or read this. I would suggest to support your idea with evidence.

Thanks[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:261, topic:5041”]
he rest of your post is just repetition of the traditional views/interpretations, which I don’t accept and will not discuss once again.[/quote]

So you seem to believe the words " Brother Joe", “Deele”, “cat”, etc, represent a real Brother Joe or cat rather than are just ‘conventions’ or ‘verbal designations’ assigned to parts, as described in SN 5.10 & MN 98? SN 5.10 is a very lofty sutta to me yet you seem to disagree with its contents.

Certainly not. I did not discard/reject the 2nd characteristic since the suttas only say the 3 characteristics apply to conditioned phenomena.

[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:261, topic:5041”]
My point is (once again), the first and last of the Three Characteristics (anicca, anattā) would apply to all conditioned things, including the Five Aggregates, but the second would only apply to the Five Clinging Aggregates[/quote]

The 2nd characteristic applies to all conditioned things because they are unsatisfactory, even when they are not clung to. This is the Dhamma of the Lord Buddha, as declared in SN 22.59, AN 3.136 & Dhp 278.

If only the 1st & 3rd characteristic applied to all conditioned things, even though those conditioned things would be impermanent & not-self; due to lacking the characteristic of unsatisfactoriness; those conditioned things would be inherently desirable and would not result in dispassion.

For example , if the drug cocaine was not unsatisfactory, it could be used for pleasure & not have any harmful side effects. Cocaine could be used and when the pleasure stopped due to impermanence, cocaine could be used again, as a harmless impermanent pleasure. But because cocaine is unsatisfactory, if cannot be used for impermanent pleasure because using cocaine regularly will result in disastrous (hellish) side effects. This is why cocaine itself, as a plant growing in the ground, has three characteristics, namely, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self.

The noble truths in my understanding are not related to the three characteristics. These are two distinct teachings. The noble truths are related to the psychological suffering of the mind. The three characteristics are related to the inherent characteristics of conditioned things, be they material or mental.

To conclude, I returned to your posts on this thread because I was asked about what you believed because your essay on the internet was unclear to my friend. My friend can read your views here & my response to them.

The Buddha taught that bhikkhus are always subject to scrutiny & testing by lay people.

Thank you for replying.

With metta :seedling:

Hi @Rajitha, it’s fine to ask this, indeed, as @Deeele said,


Yes, this is true. The realms of Right Intention are deeply personal.

However, once we type something out and press “Reply” or “Post”, or write something, or speak, we enter into the domain of Right Speech.

So while the intention was beautiful (and I’m happy to take your word for it) perhaps you can see that perhaps the words could have been phrased differently?

Personally I’m sympathetic to the teaching on rebirth. And I would rather see the Sangha spreading the teachings as consistent with the EBTs.

However, on a forum such as this, where it’s difficult, due to not seeing each other’s faces and not being in each other’s presence, to get some idea of Intention; perhaps it’s best to be extra careful in our choice of words.

So there are many generally sane, good hearted, clever people who are not entirely comfortable with the notion of rebirth. While it’s okay to engage in an exchange of views. It’s probably best to do so without referring to them as “fruitcakes”!


No. It isn’t. It’s just a way for this particular online community to keep it’s Speech and general tone pleasant and inviting and respectful. It’s a way for people to say, “hey, I’ve got an issue with this, can you please have a look at it!” Flagging doesn’t break any precepts. Here’s our flagging guide. :slight_smile:

Wishing you well, with metta.

7 Likes

Well, this guy would have been doing this for a while.

My intention was not to insult him. My intention was to wake him up from a deep slumber.

At the “supermundane” level, all that matters is the intention. So it may look weird to you but it was “Right Speech”.

Then what is the purpose of “Right Speech”? Why would the Buddha have bothered to include it in the 8 Fold Path? It is an 8 Fold Path. All eight aspects of it matter.


EDIT: Remember the interactions that take place her on D&D, take place within the “mundane level”. Your mind may feel at ease because your intentions were pure. But your actions may still cause (however small they may be) possible problems in this mundane, external world.

It didn’t work. Apparently, for your words to come through, you should phrase them differently, as the Lord Buddha so masterfully did in His discourses.

3 Likes