SuttaCentral
You’ve got me puzzled. What Cathedral? All I see is a ton of bricks stuck together with mortar.
Actually, scratch that… I just mentally deconstructed the bricks to dust… the dust to atoms…the atoms to particles… the particles to energy… the energy to ??? Forward and reverse, back to the Big Bang and all the way upto the Big Crunch.
Sorry… no Cathedral to be found.
I think this is Samatha leading to vippassana, this is progression of insight based on progression of tranquillity
I think your post should be pinned because it shows how jhanas can be used to know what are not self
Perhaps, but this seems to imply that experience of jhanas is the epistemic precondition for recognition of the truth of Anatta. But this is precisely what is in question: whether experiencing a state in which there is no awareness of selfhood is a reliable premise for the metaphysical claim that no self exists. Now I get that the tradition places this sort of claim in the context of faith in the testimony of the Buddha and the Arahats, but appeal to that can only work for the believers.
I agree wholeheartedly that my personal experiences or credentials are technically irrelevant to my claims in this context, since those claims were about how certain premises do not suffice to establish certain conclusions, which is a purely logical matter. However, I recall seeing some remarks here that suggested that such things as my not being a Buddhist, not having a practice, not having experience, etc., might explain some failure of understanding on my part. I was only responding to those remarks. There might be a sense in which the arguments of someone who doesn’t really have the sort of deep experiential or deep theoretical knowledge of a domain required to make certain plausible claims in that domain may be doubted on those grounds, e.g., a claim about a fighting technique made by someone who watches martial arts might be questioned as to its probability by martial artists. In that case, if the fact that the person is actually a retired sensei but has been coaching black belts for years would be relevant.
Hi All,
This is my first post on Suttacentral, I sincerely hope what I say/share will be beneficial to you all in some way or another. May we all living beings attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana.
I see that in this thread people are discussing about self and non-self. Something that all should consider before/while discussing about this topic.
https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/bodhi
I’m going to state here that Anatta does not mean “no-self”. The meaning/definition given to Anatta came from the Sanskrit word “anatman”.
Lord Buddha advice was not to translate the Tipitaka material word-by-word into other languages specficially Sanskrit.
Something to take note of from the English translated sutta above is that when wanderer Vacchagotta ask the Buddha, “is there no self”, the word “natthattā”ti” was used and not “anatta”
In the same sutta when the Buddha was talking to Ananda about “There is a self”, “There is no self”. He used the same words in Pali, “atthatta” and “natthatta”.
The only line in the Sutta where I see the word “anatta” is “sabbe dhammā anattā’”ti?” Which is translated as “all phenomena are nonself”
The Buddha rejected to answer the question of is there a “self” or “no self”. After rejecting this question, would he really answer after that “all phenomena are nonself” ? This is something to consider . . .
Arahants or the Buddha’s are the only one’s that can experience “non self” because they have completely removed avija. Their attainments include Ariya jhanas.
Unfortunately that’s one of the practices out there . . .
This wouldn’t be a problem if we’re not talking about “is there a self” or “is there no self” Which the Buddha avoided such a question.
Well said, but not just abandoning the hindrances to see things clearly, one also needs to cultivate wisdom by walking on the Noble 8 fold path.
Very good advice, we all should keep this in mind when we’re all discussing the dhamma with others.
One can see things the way they are without needing to go deep into meditation . . .
Be careful not to fall into the trap of if something “exist” or “doesn’t exist”.
Well said.
No it doesn’t, and I don’t believe that to be the Buddha words.
It’s due to avija, removing the first fetter sakkaya ditthi is the removal of the “wrong view” of a self. “Nothing can be taken as one’s own”. Even though one has removed the wrong view of self, the “perception” of self will still remain until one completely removes avija at Arahanthood or break the fetter of (mana) which is translated as conceit but that’s not the best translation for the word “mana” . . .
That’s one of the meanings of atta which the negated word is anatta. 
That is not correct . . . I have gotten into first jhana’s before and I could access the five senses and the will (whatever you define that as . . .)
I don’t know exactly what you mean by “indeterminate nature” but from my own understanding/knowing/seeing of the Buddha dhamma, this is very well said Rick.
That’s fair to say, that’s why the Buddha taught Paticca Samuppada. As well taught anatta (with the proper meaning) in a way for us to understand/see "from the perspective that “nothing can be taken as one’s own” instead of trying to see from the perspective of that there is “no-self”.
The Buddha implies what a self is when, in the Anattalakkhana Sutta he argues that if this or that aggregate (khandha) were the self, it could have it that that aggregate would be as it wished to be (free of suffering), but it cannot do so at will—which implies that a self is a self-controlling entity that can have the states it wants to have at will. Elsewhere he claims that he is able to have or not have the thought or volition he wishes to have or not have, respectively, which, when combined with his implied claim about self control being constitutive of a self, implies that since he has that sort of self control, then he has a self.
Sure, if you’re a mereological eliminativist, but by the same logic there is no Big Bang, no big collapse, no Buddha, no Dharma, no Sangha, no paramitas, no jhanas, no Kleshas, no samsara, no dukkha, no holy life, no anything.
Exactly, that’s one of the reasons why in my OP I mentioned the teaching of the vipallasas, implying that unless you abandon the hindrances in deep meditation, your view, thoughts and perceptions will be unreliable because you are deluded.
In this sense, as one’s mind becomes purer and purer in meditation and as the will ceases, one would come to realize that the will is just a process which is out of one’s control (like Schopenhauer said ‘a man cannot will what he wills’) and which can stop if the causes of the process stop.
And this is consistent, as far as I understand, with the idea of kamma. My
understanding is that as long as one is deluded and has a sense of self, one will feel/believe that they are responsible for their bad kamma and they can thus be reborn in a lower state (one sends himself to a lower state). A streamwinner who realises that there is no self and thus no free will, cannot be reborn in a lower realm because they realize that their past bad kamma was just due to conditioning, not to a free choice. At least that’s what I have gathered from some of Ajahn Brahm’s remarks, though I am not 100% sure that I understood it correctly.
By the way, I don’t know whether you accept the teaching of rebirth: I had an exchange with Massimo Pigliucci on the subject, based on Ian Stevenson’s and Jim Tucker’s books. He still does not accept it, because he says that extraordinary claims need extraordinarily strong pieces of evidence. So again, one important difference with Buddhism seems to be that in the latter, extraordinary events (or events which are considered extraordinary in Western culture) like jhanas, rebirth or psychic phenomena (as those described in the book Irreducible Mind) etc. are taken seriously and are thought to afford a broader picture of reality. Indeed it seems that what are called the deeper teachings are based on these extraordinary events. On the other hand, many philosophers and scientists would dismiss such event since they cannot be explained by the predominant world view.
At least this is my understanding at present.
The point is just that certain kinds of self-theories can be ruled out through a jhāna experience. The full recognition of anattā is deeper.
You are quite right. No awareness of selfhood is not a sufficient premise to claim there is no self. In fact, there are countless times during a day when one is fully occupied with what one is doing and there is no awareness of a self. Yet it is clear enough that one cannot make any non-self claim on that basis. This is also true for a deep state of samādhi. The sense of self is completely gone, yet it returns when one emerges, usually taking the very state of samādhi as its object. The point, rather, is that the experience of a deep state of samādhi will enable one to exclude certain aspects of personality as a self. This includes the five senses and the will. For a full insight into anattā one will have to go even deeper. But it’s a good start!
In Buddhism tradition and experience go hand in hand. In fact, it is precisely the fact that Buddhism is a living tradition that makes it so interesting to many. The insights of early Buddhism are still being had in the present day.
From my perspective you have not had a jhāna experience.
Then you don’t have jhana friend but I think that should not matter because the visuddhimagga said that jhana is not needed to attain nibbana, only momentary concentration is needed ,buddha too said in suttas that even unification of mind is right concentration there’s no need to have the other factors for if they exist it would be Access concentration instead of momentary concentration
But it can be interpreted in other Way too like momentary concentration may actually include the other four factors but only momentarily and access concentration can hold the 5 jhana factors much longer than momentary concentration
But I think by controlling here he means that he can make his mind and body to be permanent and eternal but he can’t do it therefore mind and body are not self
Controlling here doesn’t mean changing the mind or body at will but changing the nature of mind or body from impermanent to permanent
They aren’t meant to. They’re just things to reflect upon that hopefully foster closer examination of held views.
I’m sure you would favor the latter, but I don’t think those stereotypes are helpful and I wouldn’t stereotype you or anyone else with them.
But there is the experience of all of these, is there not?
Why is anything more needed?
can you (or anyone here on SC) provide the reference of the Sutta please?
You don’t need a sutta for that friend, for buddha obviously can control his thoughts for example he can prevent sexual thoughts from arising in his mind ,he can attain jhanas and cessation attainment easily whenever and wherever he wants
but I thought one can never will their way into a jhana;
I had understood that these were natural processes (rather than choices): for example through nibbida one has natural revulsion for sensuality, so sexual thoughts just do not arise. And jhanas naturally occur for an enlightened being who has eradicated all defilements.
See MN 20 and AN 4.35 for example.
The confusion seems to arise from attempting to reconcile the Cartesian notion of awareness of one’s own existence (I think, therefore I am) with the Buddhist notion of the cessation of suffering (not self). One can be aware of the cessation of suffering without relinquishing awareness of a self to experience the cessation of suffering. When describing the cessation of suffering, if one substitutes the term “not suffering self” for “not self” the problem goes away. It is not difficult to do this since by “not self” what is meant is the cessation of suffering. By definition, the cessation of suffering is the awareness that suffering has ceased. This is of course tautological, but definitions are, by definition, tautological. Therefore, there is no logical fallacy in substituting “not suffering self” for “not self” and describing the cessation of suffering as that state of awareness that suffering has ceased. Problem solved.
I see. Something to consider is that jhana/dhyana practice was not special to Buddhism but practiced by other ascetics who didn’t have the same enlightenment experience as the Buddha. So, I think meditation must be combined with other things such as ethics and the four noble truths to really be effective. Meditative states by themselves aren’t able to overcome wrong view.
But this is something that’s been debated inside the Buddhist tradition probably since the beginning. Some Buddhists insist that non-Buddhists “do it wrong” and created ideas like corrupted and uncorrupted jhana/dhyana to explain why non-Buddhists practice meditation without the same results. Personally, I think it’s actually the non-meditative aspects of Buddhist thought that make the difference.
right. One tries to stand out of self and observe self.
The problem is
the observer is also colored by self view, it can’t be helped.
Thus one can never truly jump out of self view merely by contemplation.