Spin-Off from Bhante Sujato’s Essay: Self, no self, not-self…

Discussion
1

I believe that the EBT-Buddha does not teach that only vinnana can know and perceive (AN11.7)
And the texts (AN10.81) describe also a mind without limits that is detached from vinnana.

I believe the problem arises when one does not accept that vinnana’s arise in the mind.

Perceptions, feelings, moments of awareness of a certain smell (arising smell vinnana’s), moments of awareness of certain sounds (arising ear vinnana’s), moments of awareness of certain ideas, thought, emotions (arising of mental vinnana’s) that happens in the mind. The mind is the forerunner.

This coming and going of sense vinnana’s creates the illusionairy impression that mind is a stream and really flows. But if it flows why dont’ we flow? There is only coming and going. Mind does not go anywhere. Flow is an illusionairy impression.

That is why vinnana’s is called a magician. It creates the illusion of flow. In many lives we have seen this stream of vinnana’s as me and mine because the mind is obsessed with movement and does not pay any attention to asankhata, what is not seen arising and ceasing. One can also say, i believe, it does not pay attention to itself. It inclines to get trapped and lost in her own projections that come and go. That was, is our delusion i believe.

All Buddha does with…anicca, dukkha, anatta, this is not me, not mine, my self, is to break this obsession with formations and make us see that mind does not at all come and go. This element that is stable, not seen coming and going becomes more and more visible, noticable, apparant, as it were.

The problem is: to believe we are a stream of vinnana’s is the expression of a total identification. In this idea there is no difference between me and this stream and this stream of vinnana’s and me. And then the only escape from suffering becomes the total cessation of this stream. But, there is not even a stream. Stream is the impression that comes with grasping. But if there is no grasping where is this stream? Without grasping there is only coming and going formations, or like Sariputta said, one perception or vinnana arose in me and another ceased.

Yes, vinnana is not self. Vinnana are merely the perceptions arising and ceasing in the mind. In practice one cannot seperate arising vinnana’s and arising perceptions and feelings. It all refers to coming and going formations in the mind that only seemingly create the impression of a stream, while one can also notice that mind does not really flow or move.

2

This is in keeping with how I understand the difference between no-self versus not-self. The former is engaging in an indirect proof through negation aka affirming negation; whereas the latter is a non-affirming negation. An affirming negation can be seen as a metaphysical stance, but the latter is void of such a view.

The habit of dualistic thinking that sentient beings have engaged in for such a long time makes it extremely hard for them to see or even contemplate what a non-affirming negation is and how it offers a door for liberation of dualistic thinking.

:pray:

3

I’m wondering from where do you find this distinction made, as it is not found in the Pali suttas. Perhaps it’s from another tradition?

4

I’d refer to the comment of @knigarian above and his Pali sutta references. I was responding to that, not another tradition. :pray:

5

Is that from “A Thinker’s Notebook?” Select document format

6

The idea that an arahant attains something after death is flawed in my opinion. He attains something in this very life (AN10.81) and that also remains at death. He/she knows for sure there is not such a thing as a mere cessation. There is only a total cooling down, a coolness as it were.

In final sense also the idea that someone attains something is, in the end, flawed. It is nothing but mind coming home, seeing home, finding home back again. The Buddha sought a home and he found it in the mind without limits. That is stable, not disintegrating.

But one must not think about this as a vinnana, a sense moment.

I feel, it all starts by accepting that our knowledge of the mind is here and now due to defilements very limited. Like a frog in a well who thinks he knows the world. Now our minds are so defiled that we look upon it as human, man or woman, buddhist, jewish, a stream of vinnana’s etc. Or we have some theory of mind such as in abhidhamma: citta’s arising in a hadaya vatthu. But that is no knowledge of mind but of theory.

Our common understanding of mind relies on defilements. But when defilement gradually are removed also our understanding of mind start to change. It changes from very fleeting, like a stream running from a mountain, to a river, to the sea. Our understanding of minds nature deepens gradually.

Until the moment defilements are gone and the mind is unbound like AN10.81 says. Now one knows really what mind is.

1 Like
7

Actually it’s not really true according to this Venerable from Wat HinMarkPeng , also the contrary is mentioned in his book “Buddho”

8

Well, I did not mention only the book, but also posted from someone who is a member of Wat Hin Mak Peng, and much more qualified to talk about this issue. Can you post a link to the original thai talks ?

1 Like
9

Sorry, but It seems you are overreaching Bhante . Your idea’s are consistent with the NIddesa though.

But It seems much closer to AN 9.36 , where the Buddha instructs the following :

a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the base of nothingness. He considers whatever phenomena exist there pertaining to feeling, perception, volitional activities, and consciousness as impermanent, suffering, an illness, a boil, a dart, misery, affliction, alien, disintegrating, empty, and non-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena and directs it to the deathless element thus: ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, the stilling of all activities, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbāna.’ If he is firm in this, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that lust for the Dhamma, because of that delight in the Dhamma, then, with the utter destruction of the five lower fetters, he becomes one of spontaneous birth, due to attain final nibbāna there without ever returning from that world.

Destruction of the five lower fetters , refers to attaining the Anāgāmī stage, where they can only be born in the Pure Abodes. Upasiva is talking about crossing the flood , not just reaching the state of Nothingness, which he is already capable of.

10

Hi,

Sorry, I just can’t get to this right now, but I think ya’ll missed a critical sukta in the Rgveda - unless I didn’t see it mentioned in my skim, if so, gomen ne. And that would be the Keśin RV X. 136

“Carrying within oneself fire and poison, heaven and earth, ranging from enthusiasm and creativity to depression and agony, from the heights of spiritual bliss to the heaviness of earth-bound labor. This is true of man in general and the [Vedic] Keśin in particular, but the latter has mastered and transformed these contrary forces and is a visible embodiment of accomplished spirituality. He is said to be light and enlightenment itself. The Keśin does not live a normal life of convention. His hair and beard grow longer, he spends long periods of time in absorption, musing and meditating and therefore he is called “sage” (muni). They wear clothes made of yellow rags fluttering in the wind, or perhaps more likely, they go naked, clad only in the yellow dust of the Indian soil. But their personalities are not bound to earth, for they follow the path of the mysterious wind when the gods enter them. He is someone lost in thoughts: he is miles away.”

~ Werner, Karel (1977) “Yoga and the Ṛg Veda: An Interpretation of the Keśin Hymn,” Religious Studies 13 (3): 289–302.

Oh, and here, I think this is from J&B (roughly, who knows I may have tinkered)

The long-haired one bears fire, the long-haired one poison, the long-haired one the two world-halves.
The long-haired one (bears) the sun for all to see. The long-haired one is called this light here.
The wind-girt ascetics wear tawny rags. They follow the swooping of the wind when the gods have entered (them).

Roused up to ecstasy by our asceticism, we have mounted the winds. You mortals see only our bodies.

He flies through the mid-space, gazing down on all forms. The ascetic has been established as the comrade of every god for good action.
The horse of the wind, the comrade of Vāyu — so sped by god, the ascetic presides over both seas, the eastern and the western.
Ranging in the range of the Apsarases and the Gandharvas, of the wild birds, the long-haired one is their sweet, most exhilarating comrade, who knows their will.
Vāyu churned it for him, Kunannamā kept crushing it — when the long-haired one drank of the poison with his cup, together with Rudra.

X.136 (962) Muni [the Kesíns “Long-Haired Ones”]

11

Hi Bhante, very nice essay!

In philosophy of science, instrumentalism refers to a viewpoint about scientfic theories. Namely: scientific theories only predict what will be the outcomes observed when we make measurements with instruments. No further ontological commitments are made.

So contrast this with the normal Newtonian picture. In Newtonian mechanics, you have some trajectory that describes the motion of a ball or particle through space. You can predict where the ball will land. But there is also the ontological idea that the ball really is “out there” going through space according to the trajectory predicted by the equations of motion.

This may seem sort of a strange viewpoint, but it is more persuasive in the context of quantum mechanics. It is pretty hard to say exactly just what is happening in between (quantum) measurements. The wave function really only describes the probabilities of measurements. The Copenahagen interpretation posits that the wave function is ontologically real and that measurements “collapse” it. Instrumentalism just refuses to even ask the question.

I think in general the term instrumentalism might be used more broadly about ideas in general, but the above viewpoint is how I originally learned about it in coursework.

2 Likes
12

Yes, this is how I learned of the term as well. An instrumentalist is interested in functional knowledge that describes direct sense experience. If I set my instruments up in this way and perform this experiment, then this is what I observe as a result. No further metaphysical speculation is necessary nor interesting.

An instrumentalist is parsimonious with regard to what they deem actual knowledge. It is a conservative view that believes we should focus on what we actually grok and not fool ourselves thinking we know something through metaphysical speculation.

:pray:

1 Like
13

That’s fine, I have Christian friends who are extremely confident that God exist. But:

Suppose a man were to say: ‘I am in love with the most beautiful girl in this country.’ Then they would ask him: ‘Good man, that most beautiful girl in this country with whom you are in love—do you know whether she is from the noble class or the brahmin class or the merchant class or the worker class?’ and he would reply: ‘No.’ Then they would ask him: ‘Good man, that most beautiful girl in this country with whom you are in love—do you know her name and clan?…Whether she is tall or short or of middle height?…Whether she is dark or brown or golden-skinned? …What village or town or city she lives in?’ and he would reply: ‘No.’ And then they would ask him: ‘Good man, do you then love a girl you have never known or seen?’ MN 79

I hope we both agree that to love such girl is rather contradictory affair.

But than, Bhante, you say that you are certain that God doesn’t exist. But what do you mean by “God”?
Is it not the case that first you have to create certain images of God, in your mind, and after that, next step is to say: such God doesn’t exist?

But because you created in your mind certain image of God, in fact at least in this sense your negation turns out to be affirmation of God. Wouldn’t be preferable to keep mind free and void?

But your description or definition of God is your personal one. “God” is merely graphic symbol, here and now visible on my screen, for me it is absolutely meaningless symbol, my mind sees nothing which I could affirm or deny.

But I must be careful saying to my Christian friend: your God isn’t real, it is only certain image, or certain description, which is false, however strong your faith in it is.

I must be careful, since he may answer: well, I have no slightest idea about attributes of my God, apart one description which seems to me valid, namely, God is infinite, you aren’t able to see His beginning, His end, neither you aren’t able to see the change in Him, while he is present.

Here, in fact I think for one who has a respect for Dhamma, name given “God” isn’t important, important is not to contradict Suttas saying that there is no changelles element.

14

Yes. He wasn’t interested in answering question: is Dhamma theistic or atheistic, but rather in question where is the place of theism and atheism in Brahmajala?

16

Discussions like this one remind me of something that Ajahn Dune said:

83. ANOTHER COMPARISON

"The paths, fruitions, and nibbana are personal: You can truly see them only for yourself. Those who practice to that level will see them for themselves, will be clear about them for themselves, will totally end all their doubts about the Buddha’s teaching. If you haven’t reached that level, all you can do is keep on guessing. No matter how profoundly someone else may explain them to you, your knowledge about them will be guesswork. Whatever is guesswork will have to be uncertain.

"It’s like the turtle and the fish. The turtle lives in two worlds: the world on land and the world in the water. As for the fish, it lives only in one world, the water. If it were to get on land, it would die.

"One day, when a turtle came down into the water, it told a group of fish about how much fun it was to be on land: The lights and colors were pretty, and there were none of the difficulties that came from being in the water.

"The fish were intrigued, and wanted to see what it was like on land, so they asked the turtle, ‘Is it very deep on land?’

"The turtle answered, ‘What would be deep about it? It’s land.’

"The fish: ‘Are there lots of waves on land?’

"The turtle: ‘What would be wavy about it? It’s land.’

"The fish: ‘Is it murky with mud?’

"The turtle: ‘What would be murky about it? It’s land.’

"Notice the questions asked by the fish. They simply take their experience of water to ask the turtle, and the turtle can do nothing but say no.

“The mind of a run-of-the-mill person guessing about the paths, fruitions, and nibbana is no different from the fish.”

That said, with regard to the Heart Ajahn Tate says in The Flavour of Dhamma:

BUDDHISM ORIGINATED FROM A SINGLE SOURCE
That single source was the heart of the Lord Buddha, which was cleansed, until pure, by the practice of MAGGA (the right path). In that moment of purity, the four ARIYASACCA became evident, and that was the starting point of the Buddhist religion.

Each one of us has only one heart – not many. When we say we have many hearts, we are referring to the outward expressions of the heart, which are not the heart itself. For someone who is not yet trained in purifying these outward expressions of the heart, so that there is only one left, SACCADHAMMA (the truth) will not appear at all. Such people will only see the heart’s projections, i.e. the KILESA (defilements, greed, hatred, delusion).

When Lord Buddha trained as an ascetic for six years, He undertook the principles of those subjects that He studied, testing them and searching for the truth, but enlightenment did
not result. They only made His heart agitated, puffed up with pride and restless. Even the completion of that way of asceticism did not result in renunciation and freedom, and so was not able to guide the Lord to enlightenment.

When the Lord Buddha allowed Himself to proceed along the lines of JHĀNASAMĀDHI – which He had experienced by accident (having no teacher) whilst a child – His Citta became calm and could enter Jhāna. In this way, He attained BODHIÑANA(Enlightenment) and became a SAMMĀSAMBUDDHA (One Enlightened by Himself). This demonstrates that the practice of Jhāna Samādhi Magga is the means to cleanse away the Kilesa ĀRAMMANA, the things which defile the Citta, thus leaving the Citta pure, radiant and solitary. When radiance and clarity are normal to the Citta, other things apart from the Citta (i.e., the
Kilesa and all Dhamma) that arise in the present will be seen clearly, at a single point. This knowledge has the purpose of cleansing and purifying the heart, so that it receives the pure and genuine Dhamma. This then conforms with the Buddhist saying:

“THE HEART IS THE FORERUNNER OF ALL THINGS,
THE HEART IS THEIR CHIEF,
ATTAINMENT IS VIA THE HEART”
In general terms, it can be said that all Dhamma arise and
appear at the heart and are known only because of the heart
(PACCATAṀ). Therefore, the heart is more precious than
anything else because the heart is the one that brings success
to all deeds.

It can be seen from this quote that, like his peers, he described enlightenment as cleansing the Heart of foreign invaders, the defilements. He did not speak about it as merely cessation of defilement because, as he wrote in the above, after cessation is accomplished, the Citta is pure, radiant and solitary.

As a footnote, he also said that this pure, radiant and solitary Citta is ANATTA! There is no “self” associated with it. It belongs to no-one.

Ajahn Maha Boowa said, “The Citta itself is never born and never dies.”

I will add that one point that I am yet to see in any of these threads is the Knowing nature of the Citta can have no External Object. In other words, this Citta is not the Citta of the six senses (which define the word Vinnana). In this case, the Citta simply knows itself - its knowing nature turns back on itself. Deep Samadhi gives the meditator a glimpse of this but even that glimpse is infiltrated by Moha and so is not the insight that gives rise to Maggasamangi.

18

In my opinion the EBT, real life, practice, shows that there are really factors that limit the mind. The sutta’s describe them as anusaya, asava, tanha, kilesa. I think we all can be able to recognise these factors in our own mind. And we are able to see and understand that they actually limit our understanding, compassion, love when they arise and start to dominate our thinking, speaking and acting.

For one who wants to be a light for him/herself, for others, for the world, an island, a friend, Buddha-like, he/she will naturally incline to seek methods, wisdom, skillful means to abandon those limiting factors like greed, obsessions, drift, blind will, hate, ill will, ego conceit etc.
This will be a daily routine and is a heartfelt wish. It is not really important that one fails from time to time. Important is to continue.

Nothing substantial, nothing of great worth, nothing really me, mine, my self will get lost. Only such things as becoming unfriendly, alieniation, depersonalisation, partiallity, immoralilty, judging and measuring, becoming insensitive, inner conflict, violent tendencies etc. will get lost. Nothing of worth.

It is not really difficult to understand that all what limits the mind is never me, mine, my self (AN1.51)
It is just bagage collected over many lifes and/or picked up in this life. Loosing bagage is not loosing oneself but loosing the things that weight upon oneself.

But it is also very clear that we humans are identified with the weight. And this is the challenge to progress. To be a truly Dhamma practioner one cannot, i feel, hold on to those causes and conditions that cause of weight upon oneself. That is not easy. I have struggled with this for long in ups and downs.
It might sound totally irrational but still it is not easy to give up suffering and its causes because it also gives meaning to our lifes, a sense of identity, grip.

It is, ofcourse, very clear that the EBT teach that when mind is released from its limiting factors it is taught as unbound, free, pliant, stable, without limits, the fire has ceased, it is cool.
That coolness is it happiness, its burdenfree-ness. It is like fire not agitated anymore.

Ofcourse mind was always cool, is always cool, and will be always cool, and only incoming defilements make it look not-cool.
People believe that this mind without limits only is present (or even …arises) after a very long time of cleansing. But it is not like that. It is not that when water is cleansed from adventitious defilements that the pure water arises. It was always there, and defilements have always been adventitious to water, otherwise they cannot be removed.

Likewise the mind.

19

Hi Darrow,

I have learned a lot from various teachers and commentators, including Ven Thanissaro. Generally, I prefer teachers to simply teach what their interpretation or approach is and not spend a lot of time explaining how others have it wrong and I tend to switch off when they do.

Ven Thanissaro has not only expressed his opinion on the issues discussed in this thread (and other issues). He has frequently argued quite strongly that others have interpreted these issues incorrectly. Given that, having a detailed critique of his arguments is useful for those of us who do not have the time or expertise to evaluate those arguments ourselves. Of course, in the end, the conclusion that we take away from the different points of view is our own.

20

Bhante, the point is that you are trying to convince us that there is no Self. I have no slightest idea what this “self” is which you say it is non-existent.

All I know there is such phenomen as attāvada which is connected with sakkayaditthi. And I am certain that this is our task as Buddha followers: abandon sakkayaditthi and attavada.

So while it is good idea to agree upon definition of “metaphysical” for the purpose of this discussion even
better idea is to define what we mean by “attā”. And to reaped by attā I mean certain subjective experience which is present in every puthujjana experience and which is associated with perception of permanence and mastery over things which puthujjana describes as “my self” and in the Buddha Teaching is known as attavadupadana and sakkayaditthi.

In common sense language there is such thing like ego and self, so this is a problem since because of it people are egoistic and selfish. And here is difference between your stance and the Buddha since while there is no single Sutta which deny in direct way “self” sometimes Lord Buddha speaks to outsiders about the states of being in the terms of self alluding to nibbana cessation of being.

“There are these three types of acquisition of self: the gross, the mind-constituted, and the formless…. The first has (material) form, consists of the four great entities and consumes physical food. The second has form and is constituted by mind with all the limbs and lacking no faculty. The third is formless and consists in perception…. I teach the Dhamma for the abandoning of acquisitions of self in order that in you, who put the teaching into practice, defiling qualities may be abandoned and cleansing qualities increased, and that you may, by realisation yourselves here and now with direct knowledge, enter upon and abide in the fullness of understanding’s perfection…. If it is thought that to do that is a painful abiding, that is not so; on the contrary, by doing that there is gladness, happiness, tranquillity, mindfulness, full awareness, and a pleasant abiding.”

The Buddha went on to say that from one rebirth to another any one of these three kinds of acquisition of self can succeed another. That being so, it cannot be successfully argued that only one of them is true and the others wrong; one can only say that the term for any one does not fit the other two; just as, with milk from a cow, curd from milk, butter from curd, ghee from butter, and fine-extract of ghee from ghee, the term of each fits only that and none of the others, yet they are not disconnected. The Buddha concluded:

“These are worldly usages, worldly language, worldly terms of communication, worldly descriptions, by which a Perfect One communicates without misapprehending them.”
D N. 9 (condensed)

So Bhante, please clarify this point, what is this self which you say that it doesn’t exist. Because as I understand Dhamma, self and conceit “I am” are things which can be classified as delusion or ignorance and as such they have to be removed from experience. And it should be quite obvious that what has to be removed in certain sense must exist. And this is precisely reason why in Dhamma there is no place for affirmation nor negation of self.

Or perhaps do you mean there is no such thing as “my self” in the case of sotāpanna?

“This world, Kaccāna, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence.31 But this one [with right view] does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’32 He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kaccāna, that there is right view.
SN 12: 15

This passage above seems to say that notion “my self” is the state of dhukkha. The dhukkha which is not understood by the puthujjana.

Dhukkha has to be understood. What are liberatering qualities of view “there is no self”? How such view can help to abandon self-identification with things if one insist that there is no such thing with which other things are identified? or how can one see the body as a self? You seem to say that it is impossible, since there is no such thing as self. Or perhaps you mean some Hindu Self?

But than, what it has in common with the doctrine of anatta which is directed to Buddhist puthujjana in order to help him to abandon sakkayaditthi?

I hope Bhante that you will not see these questions as a kind of disrespect, I just want to clarify certain very important point out of respect for Dhamma, not out of disrespect for you.:smiling_face:

2 Likes
21

How about this proposed definition? For the purposes of this thread could we define it as a self that can be found in the parts/aggregates as existing:

“… ontologically fundamental, irreducible to any simpler components, and existing independently of other phenomena”

I don’t know if this is Venerable’s proposed definition for this thread, but I find it a useful workable definition. Maybe more can be said, but this is a good starting point to my mind.

NOTE: this definition does not rule out the self merely existing as a label given upon a valid basis when the parts are present; it does not rule out the mere existence of the self from a mundane or functional point of view. What it does call into question is whether a self, conceptually existing as described above can be found in the parts. If it can’t be found, then this rules out a self existing in the way described, right? Maybe more can be ruled out, but this is a start isn’t it?

:pray:

22

The point is that notion self while it is associated with perception of permanence, in reality doesn’t exist independently of other openomena, contrary, it is dependently arisen upon ignorance. But perhaps it is not wrong to say that for puthujjana it may seem to exist independently.

In the arahat 's reflexion what appears reflexively is only pañcakkhandhā , which he calls ‘myself’ simply for want of any other term. But in the puthujjana 's reflexion what appears reflexively is pañc’upādānakkhandhā , or sakkāya ; and sakkāya (q.v.), when it appears reflexively, appears (in one way or another) as being and belonging to an extra-temporal changeless ‘self’ (i.e. a soul).

For example phrase: “my body”, points out to exactly the self who owns it. If someone believes himself to understand Dhamma because his view is “there is no self” let him reflect on his own experience, really there is no any thing considered by him as mine?