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

[Gabriel]

@Mkoll

I say this because I don’t understand where you’re asking.

Not that Nietzsche is necessarily the right voice on a Buddhist forum, but he reflected wisely I think on the question of the ‘true world’, or ‘ultimate reality’. Maybe also interesting for @Brother_Joe. Here a quote from “Twilight of Idols”

HOW THE “TRUE WORLD” FINALLY BECAME A FABLE. The History of an Error

1. The true world–attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.
   (The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, “I, Plato, am the truth.”)
2. The true world–unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man (“for the sinner who repents”).
   (Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible–it becomes female [comment: let’s ignore the misogyny for now] , it becomes Christian. )
3. The true world–unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it–a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.
   (At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian [comment: i.e. Kant].)
4. The true world–unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
   (Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)
5. The “true” world–an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating–an idea which has become useless and superfluous–consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!
   (Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens and cheerfulness; Plato’s embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)
6. The true world–we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.

[Shaun]

Hi Coemgenu,
Thanks very much for the detailed explanation, it was very insightful and interesting.

I have asked some Mahayana Venerables the same question. They say that Buddha Nature (which is what they see as the core essence of Buddhism) is equivalent to having 无形, which I think the best translation is no form, i.e. it is also seen as emptiness. For the average person, the Buddha Nature though has many imprints upon it, making it appear as self, imprints, of course, can also be seen as memories.

The goal is to return to this Buddha Nature of ‘pure awareness’ or 觉性 or 佛性. When one returns to this, then there is no longer self as there is only emptiness i.e. no imprints. When I heard this answer it made perfect sense to me, imprints make there appears to be a self, give memories etc but in the end, there is nothing but a pure awareness.

The issue for me is that (I really hope this doesn’t start a war on this forumn) is that I feel Mahayana Buddhism is not Buddha’s Buddhsim, simply due to the fact that I see way too many correlations between 道家 and Chan Buddhsim. As D.T. Suzuki said, Chan - the evolution of Buddhism under Daoist conditions. Whereas even thought Theravada Buddhism may very well not be Buddha’s Buddhism I can’t help but feel it must be closer as I don’t find Chinese concepts with in it.

[Deeele]

@Mkoll

And I think it’s wrong view to reject the teaching of rebirth, or “this world and the other world.”

These are just words. There are many here-&-now teachings about ‘the world’ & ‘worlds’ (loka), such as:

Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos. AN 4.45

I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’…I have seen, bhikkhus, the heaven named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ SN 35.135

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. AN 6.39

How has a monk attained/arrived at the state of a god?.. A monk enters & dwells is the first…second…third…fourth jhana…How has a monk attained/arrived at the state of a brahma?.. A monk pervades the entire world with loving-kindness… compassion… appreciative joy… equinimity… AN 4.190

Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought processes and the mind in one point internally appeased, without thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with equanimity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too, abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions, for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa lokassa). MN 79

Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the wives of other honored persons. AN 2.9

I might sound like a broken record but your & my personal interpretations of translated words may not be what the Buddha taught.

The last sutta quoted (AN 2.9) sounds particularly compelling because it appear to refers to a ‘moral world’ and another kind of ‘world of sexual promiscuity’, as found in places like Hollywood & the Californian porn industry.

the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals.

[Mkoll]

One interpretation has mountains more evidence for it than the other. Therein lies the difference.

[Deeele]

So a fertile imagination is more ‘evidence’ than the visible Californian reality?

the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals.

Everyday, in every Theravada monastery, it is chanted the Dhamma is visible here & now.

Therefore, please present your evidence (apart from interpreting scriptures).

Thanks

[Deeele]

@Coemgenu

“Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority.”
-MN 135

seem to imply that “selves” exists which are strictly formations of kammic consequence (i.e. “selves are kamma”), conceptualizing of them as “selves” or identifying with this kamma as “what I am” would be another self-view, a saṅkhāra if one will, which is just another thing that should be discarded.

I like this mode of inquiry. In my reading, the key word here is “beings” (“sattanam”), which is discussed in SN 23.2 & SN 5.10. For me, what it means is when the view of ‘self’ or ‘a being’ exists, kamma-vipaka will occur. This is conventional reality of kammic law.

[Brother_Joe]

@Mkoll

And I think it’s wrong view to reject the teaching of rebirth, or “this world and the other world.” This is explicitly supported in the texts.

Please stop assuming my beliefs. I reject RE-birth. I accept ‘this world and the other world’.

[Mkoll]

1. None or at most a tiny minority of Buddhist thinkers throughout history before the 20th century have ever rejected rebirth. I’d bet there’s not even a single one or you non-rebirthers would have trotted them out by now.

2. No bona fide scholar I know of claims the Buddha didn’t teach rebirth. And these are people with far greater understanding of the language than most of us here.

3. The suttas are very clearly talking about rebirth, time and time again. The suttas in SN 15 are probably the most blatant example of this

In other words, no one, or very few people indeed, shares your strange hermeneutic that blinds itself to the fact that rebirth in samsara is taught in the suttas. Honestly, this whole debate reminds me of climate change denial.

[Mkoll]

I thought it was a reasonable assumption, namely that if you reject rebirth you reject the reality of other worlds beyond this one. Forgive me if you explained yourself earlier, but if you could clarify… What is ‘this world’ in your beliefs? What is ‘the other world’ in your beliefs?

[Brother_Joe]

@Deeele

Originally, ‘not-self’ was taught, explaining impermanent things cannot be a ‘self’ (SN 22.59).

Later, the Buddha taught ‘sunnata’, which voids all ‘self’ (SN 35.85).

also Ud 3.10 and SN 12.15

Thanks for both of those quotes. I can see that if we don’t agree on translation of terms, our conversation will probably be quite fruitless.

The term used in both these suttas is attā which I understand to mean ‘soul’.

best wishes

[Brother_Joe]

@suci1

The only relationship between "self and “I”, is that there must be the belief in a self, for the “I” to occur. And that will lead inevitably to a paradox.

Thanks for your opinion expressed as a fact. I’d encourage you to take on the training the Buddha gave to express opinions as such. Yes, like any training, it is a bit more work at the start, then it becomes natural.

For me, there is no paradox in 'there must be the belief in a self (aham not attā) for I to occur. So much for your factual inevitability!

[Brother_Joe]

@Mkoll

What is ‘this world’ in your beliefs? What is ‘the other world’ in your beliefs?

As the Buddha probably said:

The “world” (loka): “In this fathom long body with its perceptions and mind (mano), lies the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world and the path leading to the cessation of the world” (Bodhi 2000: p. 158) (Woodward 1982: p. 58) .

“Whatever is subject to disintegration, Ānanda, is called ‘the world’ in the Noble One’s Discipline. And what is subject to disintegration? The eye, Ānanda, is subject to disintegration, forms … eye-consciousness … eye-contact … whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition … that too is subject to disintegration. The ear is subject to disintegration … The mind is subject to disintegration … Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition … that too is subject to disintegration. Whatever is subject to disintegration, Ānanda, is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline.

Also:

“That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called ‘the world’ in the Noble One’s Discipline. And what, friends, is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world? The eye is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world. The ear … The nose … The tongue … The body … The mind is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world. That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called ‘the world’ in the Noble One’s Discipline.

Since I am talking about the Buddha’s teaching, then that is the meaning I use.

‘other world’ is that world which arises with a new birth.

best wishes

[Deeele]

@Brother_Joe

The term used in both these suttas is attā which I understand to mean ‘soul’.

If ‘atta’ referred to ‘soul’, I personally doubt the Buddha would have given many discourses teaching the physical body (‘rupa’) is ‘not-soul’ because the vast majority of religious people are clear the body is not the soul.

For me, the Buddha was referring to the ‘atta’ of ‘upadana’, namely, attavā­du­pādā­naṃ.

Kind regards

[Brother_Joe]

@Deeele

But the Buddha did. Refer to MN 98 & SN 1.25, where ‘conventions’ are referred to.

I did a search for ‘convention’ in both of them and there was no result. In any case, if that word were there, that is not the same as ‘conventional truth’. Please be more precise.

[Mkoll]

OK I think I see what you mean by “this world.” But I’m still unclear on what you understand “other world” to be. Similarly with rebirth.

You saId earlier, “Since I understand each birth is the birth of (an) ego (identity) in this very life, each one is different. For example, at one time I identified with certain beliefs and called myself ‘Christian’ after some time, I (ego) stopped doing that (died as a Christian) and was born ‘a Buddhist’. Both involve clinging and are suffering, imo. Instead I could just recognise my belief as belief and not cling to it as the truth and try to label myself by it.” So I’m assuming this is what you mean by the other world and rebirth (or birth or whatever you want to call it). Is this fair to say?

[Brother_Joe]

@Shaun

Just to get this clear, there is a distinction between:

No Self (anaham): in that this actually means self. Of which Buddha says it is unwise to reflect on this as it can lead to wrong views of atta (which means soul).

and

Not Self (anatta): in that this specifically means ‘no soul’ and it is acceptable to reflect on this.

Hi again Shaun

The distinction I make is:

The Buddha probably said: doubting thoughts such as: ‘do I exist’ and ‘do I not exists’ (aham in both cases) lead to views of soul (attā) and should be avoided. To think or say ‘I am not the one you seek.’ would, imo, be quite fine.

The Buddha probably said to reflect wisely on the Five Clinging Aggregates, that they are impermanent, suffering and not soul (anattā). 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.

Thus another cherished dogma, imo, is the Three Universal Characteristics, would seem not as universal as initially supposed.

[Deeele]

@Mkoll

1. at most a tiny minority of Buddhist thinkers throughout history before the 20th century have ever rejected rebirth. [/quote]

Ajahn Mun’s claim to fame was his view of the degeneracy of Thai Buddhism. When the British came to Ceylon, Buddhism was so degenerate the Burmese Sangha had to reinstate the Singalese monastic order. Buddhism came to Burma or Pagan after the Pagan king made war for the purpose to acquire the Buddhist scriptures. Buddhism became extinct in India because it become virtually indistinguishable from Hinduism. In Thailand, the king remains a reincarnation of Vishnu & the official ceremonies are Brahman, with people still engaged in spirit & ancestor worship. There was a medieval slave-based theocracy in Tibet. Zen teachers were instructing shunyata to warriors in Japan. So what exactly is the ‘Golden Age’ you have inferred here?

[quote=“Mkoll, post:153, topic:5041”]2) No bona fide scholar I know of claims the Buddha didn’t teach rebirth.

Are you aware Ajahn Buddhadasa was chosen as one of the few monks to represent Thailand at the last Buddhist Council and has been bestowed numerous honorary doctorates by Thai Universities.

What is a bona fide scholar to you? A Westerner? An American?

[quote=“Mkoll, post:153, topic:5041”]
The suttas are very clearly talking about rebirth, time and time again. The suttas in SN 15 are probably the most blatant example of this[/quote]

Each sutta ends in SN 15 summarising the teaching as leading to dispassion. Your passion for rebirth shows there is obviously something amiss in the transmission of these teachings.

[quote=“Mkoll, post:153, topic:5041”]
no one, or very few people indeed, shares your strange hermeneutic that blinds itself to the fact that rebirth in samsara is taught in the suttas.[/quote]

Samsara appears to refer to the constant clinging to the aggregates as ‘self’. Refer to SN 22.99.

A compelling argument against your entire argument is the Buddha taught it is rare thing that an individual understands the Dhamma. Since the masses agree with you, it seems either the Buddha was wrong or you are wrong.

Monks, the manifestation of six things is rare in the world, namely:

1. The manifestation of a Tathagata (Buddha).

2. One who can teach the Dhamma & Discipline of a Tathagata.

3. Attainment as a noble (enlightened) disciple.

4. Endowment with unimpaired sense faculties.

5. Being intelligent & astute.

6. Desire for the wholesome Dhamma.

AN 6.96

The manifestation (pātubhāvo) is five gems in rare in the world. What five? The manifestation of a Tathagata; a person that teaches the Dhamma proclaimed by a Tathagata; a person who understands the Dhamma when taught; a person who practises that Dhamma; and grateful & thankful person. It is the manifestation of these five gems that is rare in the world.

AN 5.144

@Mkoll

Honestly, this whole debate reminds me of climate change denial.

Some recent calls for people who deny climate change to be imprisoned, similar to Holocaust denial. In the Old Testament, those who denied Jehovah were to be stoned to death. Unlike Judaism, Christianity & Islam, there is no criminal heresy in Theravada Buddhism.

[Brother_Joe]

@Deeele

Samsara appears to refer to the constant clinging to the aggregates as ‘self’. Refer to SN 22.99.

that is translating attā as self, once again, which, since the Buddha’s teaching is precise, I think is wrong and should be ‘soul’.

[Brother_Joe]

@Mkoll

Honestly, this whole debate reminds me of climate change denial.

LOL Yes, indeed I can appreciate how it would seem that way.

[Deeele]

@Brother_Joe

hat is translating attā as self, once again, which, since the Buddha’s teaching is precise, I think is wrong and should be ‘soul’.

Brother. Your view seems to be the uninstructed worldling regards form (body) as soul.

Suppose, bhikkhus, a dog tied up on a leash was bound to a strong post or pillar: it would just keep on running and revolving around that same post or pillar. So too, the uninstructed worldling … regards form as soul… feeling as soul… perception as soul… formations as soul… consciousness as soul…. He just keeps running and revolving around form, around feeling, around perception, around volitional formations, around consciousness. As he keeps on running and revolving around them, he is not freed from form, not freed from feeling, not freed from perception, not freed from volitional formations, not freed from consciousness. He is not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from suffering, I say.