I appreciate your interest in the Buddha’s teaching. I think we might agree on the idea/teaching ‘sabbe sankhārā anattā’ = 'all conditioned things are anattā. Of course the Pali text says sabbe dhammā anattā, which would be broader, but I follow other language versions. I do not follow the common interpretation of the Buddha’s teaching that anattā means ‘not-self’ or ‘no self’. For me, that would be ‘an-aham’ in Pali.
There is no place I know of where the Buddha said ‘in the Dhamma and Discipline of the noble one, attā means aham’. So, for me, saying it is so, is a matter of interpretation and opinion, not fact. I find your statements of ‘fact’, arrogant.
Claiming the Buddha taught ‘there is no self’ via the misparaphrase of ‘sabbe dhammā anattā’ as ‘there is no self’ (or even ‘there is no soul’), is for me, misrepresenting the Buddha’s teaching. There may be some early texts that would seem to prove the common understanding that attā means aham in the Buddha’s teaching, but I propose this error occurred within the lifetime of the Buddha, in people who heard his teaching face to face, and/or that the written texts were changed on this most essential point.
I have faith that the Buddha’s teaching can be known from personally studying the early Buddhist texts. Thus one takes oneself as a refuge and has faith in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, as I believe he taught. (I believe in developing faith in the Triple Gem, not taking a Triple Refuge - an early Buddhist ritual and found in various EBT language sources).
i believe you misrepresent me by claiming that i supposedly claim what exactly Buddha taught as anatta
as far as i’m concerned selfishness has nothing to do with ontological existence or non-existence of self
and even if there were a self, the utilitarian one, not that universal fuzzy Atman, at the very least he must have taught freedom from attachment to it, which results in a life of activity and impulses devoid of taints
[quote=“LXNDR, post:42, topic:4468”][quote=Brother_Joe]I believe you misrepresent the Buddha’s teaching by claiming he taught ‘there is no self’.[/quote]i believe you misrepresent me by claiming that i supposedly claim what exactly Buddha taught as anatta
[/quote]I was just about to type something to this effect. Given the very harsh and serious condemnation I was looking fervently for what might have caused it. Looking for this alleged heretical framing of anattā up and down your comments here. I could not find it.
You didn’t even mention there being or not being a self. Very interesting, how internet exchanges often go haywire like this.
@Adutiya, by the way, if you look under the tab ‘metadata’ in the
drop-down menu (not sure it that’s what it’s called) it gives information about the translation.
Your position is interesting, although I don’t get what you’re up to here - could you define how do you understand the words self and soul? I’m not asking for dictionary definitions, just your own personal understanding of the terms.
but even if you did find it, it would only be heretical from Brother_Joe’s perspective, because i would expound it in accordance with the way it’s understood within the Theravadin tradition
and the arrogance bit is, well…
the four noble persons must too all be arrogant because they get rid of sakkayaditthi and mana, as a disclaimer for Brother_Joe not that i claim i’m one of them, no need to kill the messenger
appreciating my interest in Buddha’s Teaching has that same feel to it, but i don’t air it out
for me:
self/me/I (aham/me) = the Five aggregates which are dependently arisen
soul (attā)= an essential eternal personal part of ourselves, what one would identify as ‘my TRUE self’ that is beyond passing (impermanent) conditions
I guess you are talking to me. Please correct that understanding if it’s mistaken.
The heretical framing of anattā that I have spoken of (possibly in another topic) is:
sabbe saṅkhārā (dhammā in Pāli) anattā (all conditioned things are anattā)
has become:
n’atthi attā (there is no attā)
to avoid further confusion I have not translated anattā here. So hopefully it is easier to see what I think is a change from a statement about experience (the five aggregates) which invites testing, to a dogmatic statement.
I have never found the Buddha state n’atthi attā as his teaching. Yes we have the discourse, where he said in effect: ‘I didn’t answer ‘I teach n’atthi attā’ because that would have confused the listener.’ It is then inferred that he WOULD say that for other, more intelligent (?) people, but I have never found an example of it. Of course, you are free to believe it or not. If not, what other options do you have?
There is no doer (self) is a Hindu teaching: There is No Doer of Deeds and we can find it clearly taught by the Brahmin born ‘Buddhist’ commentator Buddhaghosa at:
“Suffering exists, but no sufferer can be found.
Actions exist, but no doer of actions is there.
Nirvana exists, but no one who enters it.
The Path exists, but no traveler can be seen.”
(Visuddimagga, 513) Full text of "Visuddhimagga - The Path of Purification"
Drear Banthe. Try to imagine an animal that does not have a sense of self developed or a baby. Only 5 animals can recognize themselves in the mirror. Most animals do not have a sense of self developed. They are like machines that behave acording to conditions. For them, there is only suffering that arrises and only suffering that ceases. There is no conception or opinion of “me suffering”. This is because in a baby or primitive animal, a sense of self has not developed. Yet Buddha explains that the seed for the development of a sense of self exists in the baby.
For an adult human, a sense of self developes based on conditions. This sense of self is just an illusion. In reality, things are just like for a primitive animal or for a baby. There is only suffering that arises and only suffering that ceases. The idea, the opinion of “it is me that suffers” - this is just a development, just a view that exists not reality. In reality, things are just like they are for a baby or primitive animal. There is only suffering that arises and only suffering that ceases.
for me:
self/me/I (aham/me) = the Five aggregates which are dependently arisen
From what I understand, what you consider to be self are the 5 aggregates that make up a being. I will question you in this way: If there would be no aggregates that make up a being, if the 5 aggregates would cease without reminder, would such a thing as a self be discerned ?
If ignorance would cease, then volitional formations would cease too. Then, consciousness and name and form would cease. Then, contact would cease. Without any contact existing, the other 3 aggregates that depend upon contact (volition, perception, feeling) would not be able to exist either. With the cessation of their condition, they can not longer continue to exist.
My question is: If the 5 aggregates would cease without reminder, would such a thing as a self be discerned apart from them ? What is your opinion on this ? Do you have an opinion about this ? Could such a thing be possible ? Could such a thing be discerned ?
Let’s stop for a moment with the debate about the pali canon been hindu influenced or not. Let’s just focus on the arguments themselves. If the arguments are correct, then the pali canon is correct no matter if it was hindu influence or not. If it was hindu, then the hindus were correct. Let’s just focus on the arguments themselves. What is your personal opinion about the arguments presented above ? What is your response ?
I understand that you are saying, you do not claim to understand what the Buddha probably taught as anattā.
I agree with “as far as i’m concerned selfishness has nothing to do with ontological existence or non-existence of self” and I try to avoid discussion about ‘ontological existence or non-existence of self’ as I have found it is useless for progress on the path. vis ‘Do I exist, do I not exist?’ etc. at https://suttacentral.net/en/mn2
For me discussion on existence or not, is suffering, whatever the specifics, self, soul, the world, god… Selfishness for me, is important in my attempt to live a Dhamma that concerns my relationships with myself and others and improving that, which for me, is an essential part of overcoming suffering.
Thanks for your attempt to educate me on the basic common teaching on not-self, I am very familiar with it already, due to my over thirty years study and practice.
I am not interested in people telling me what they think is the truth, such as ‘This sense of self is just an illusion. In reality…’ It just sounds like preaching to me.
Re: From what I understand, what you consider to be self are the 5 aggregates that make up a being.
No. For me, ‘(a) being’ is suffering, therefore it is involved, or equates to, the five CLINGING aggregates, in line with the summary sentence of the First Noble Truth.
Responding to your question:
Q. If the 5 aggregates would cease without reminder, would such a thing as a self be discerned apart from them?
"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, ‘Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.’ But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, ‘Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.’
"Feeling is not self…
"Perception is not self…
"[Mental] fabrications are not self…
SN 22.59
We can’t get the five aggregates (not clinging aggregates incidentally) to act the way we want.
But do you understand the difference between a being existing but a self not existing ? It’s the same as an airplane existing but a self of an airplane not existing. The airplane can exist without having a self. The metal of the airplane, the fuel of the airplane, the windows of the airplane etc. can exist without requiring a self. In the same way, a being or the 5 aggregates can exist without requiring a self.
Buddha did not like wanderers of other sects that were eer-wrigglers. Those who always replied “I do not say it is so. But neither do I say it is not so. And neither do I say it is not not so”
It is very difficult to discuss with a person who has no opinion. A person who just comes in and says “You are wrong but… I have no idea about what is right or not”. A person who says “you are wrong about a self not existing but… I have no clue about weather a self exists or not”. I have the same opinion about this a Buddha had about eer-wrigglers, I believe this is simply a useless position to take that leads nowhere in terms of right view. And it is also contradictory.
How can you say the opinion about no self existing is wrong when you also claim that you have no clue about weather a self exists or not ??? If you say you have no clue about weather a self exists or not, then you can not claim the opinion about no self existing is wrong because: you just claimed to have no clue about the problem.
No. For me, ‘(a) being’ is suffering, therefore it is involved, or equates to, the five CLINGING aggregates, in line with the summary sentence of the First Noble Truth.
Buddha never made a distinction between 5 aggregates subject to clinging and 5 aggregates not subject to clinging. He explained that they are called “aggregates subject to clinging” because “they can be clung to”.
Despite the fact that you do not respect the authority of the suttas, that you can simply say suttas I bring up are not valid, that is not a problem for me. If an opinion is correct, it can withstand the test or logic by itself without the use of dogmatism. If an opinion is correct, then a person can prove it through the use of logic.
Since you consider a thing called “5 aggregates not subject to clinging” to be self, this means you consider the 5 aggregates of the arahant to be self. So I will question you this way:
Is the form of the arahant permanent, not changing, not dependently arisen ?
Is the consciousness of the arahant permanent, not changing, not dependently arisen ?
Is the volition of the arahant permanent, not changing, not dependently arisen ?
Is the perception of the arahant permanent, not changing, not dependently arisen ?
Is the feeling of the arahant permanent, not changing, not dependently arisen ?
In your opinion, are they permanent or impermanent ? And if so, is what is impermanent fit to be regarded as self ? What is your opinion about the form, consciousness, volition, perception and feeling of an arahant ? Are they permanent or impermanent ? Do they arise dependent on a condition or do they arise independent of a condition ?
[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:49, topic:4468, full:true”]
for me:
self/me/I (aham/me) = the Five aggregates which are dependently arisen
soul (attā)= an essential eternal personal part of ourselves, what one would identify as ‘my TRUE self’ that is beyond passing (impermanent) conditions
simple (!?)[/quote]
Would you agree with that Friend_Joe?:
There can be no “I”, no “mine”, no “self” to obviate; as long as the “external” steps in.
I explain:
What you experience is Keith Haring when, you see one of his painting. You experience his khandhas. This can’t be “your-self” (SN 22.33 - SN 22.59). Also the ayatanas are not yours (SN 35.138).
So, pick up the sign of your own mind (citta) (SN 47.8) - Move in your own resort (SN 47.6 - SN 47.7), says Buddha.
Then do away even with that “own-self”; once you understand how impermanent that is - and mostly once you realize that it is not yours (khandhas,) but that this body is just “made to be felt” (SN 12.37).
Now, is there a sort of “Self” in the Avyakata (Undeclared) (sn44.2 - sn44.7 - sn44.8 - sn44.10 - sn44.11); something outside the realm of paṭiccasamuppāda? - There is definitely no denial of this?
Yet, apart from being undefinable (Snp 5.7), Buddha’s position seems to be that such a question is absolutely irrelevant and unsuitable with the goal of unbinding (the escape).
However, these are my words - the words of a “fallen demon”.
Yes, of course and this, of course, links with the other writer’s explanation of when self image arises, vis animals and young children.
I have experienced, what I believe is, the first arūpa jhāna, in which the physical limit of my body disappeared and I could not distinguish between myself and the rest of the universe. Thus the textual name ‘unlimited space’ and the wordling’s identification with the state as ‘I am one with the universe’ and the (Hindu, and Taoist-?) philosophy ‘I am that’.
That experience, I believe, is wrongly taken as ‘anattā’ (understood as ‘not self’) and from it the common interpretation of the Buddha’s teaching arises and this experience is what the Bodhisatta’s first former teacher thought was enlightenment.
The other reading of the I, me, mine quotes that I found is: I, me, myself. From my past research, I remember thinking that it might just be another translation option, i.e. the last word of the three, could be translated ‘mine’ or ‘myself’ by some translators, or in some old Indian dialects.
I’ve tested the common way of looking/interpretation and found it does not end suffering. I found another way of looking in the EBTs and am finding it works. Good luck in your testing of the common way of looking/understanding of self (image). Your preferred way of looking can obviously be found in the EBTs, thanks for all the references, very well researched of you!
For me, just because it’s in various sources of EBTs doesn’t prove it to be and original or authentic teaching of the Buddha, it just proves it to be Early Buddhism. Just like the doctrine/ritual of taking the Tisarana (Three Refuges). It can probably be found in all sources of EBTs, but it contradicts a clear teaching of the Buddha: ‘take yourself as a refuge, take no other refuge’. For me, it’s a worldling’s twisting of the Buddha’s instruction to develop faith (a quality of the mind) in the Triple Gem (Tiratana).
Best wishes
PS I try to avoid labelling people, including myself, such as ‘fallen demon’, as for me, it’s part of identity view.
I say the questions, ‘does a self exist’ and ‘does a self not exist’, put simpler and more personal: ‘do I exist’, and ‘do I not exist’, is wrong or useless for ending suffering. This is different from eel wrigglers and the Buddha is found to point out that certain questions are useless in the same way and I gave a quote where he did that for these two questions.
It seems you can’t really listen to what I say and don’t feel inspired to continue the conversation.
Thanks for your declaration on what the Buddha did and didn’t teach. To me it sounds like preaching and arrogant.
I don’t feel inspired to continue the conversation.
I believe the five aggregates of an arahant or any person are impermanent and dependently arisen and they are to be regarded as an impermanent self (aham), as I have already said, but not a soul (attā).
It seems you can’t really listen to what I say and don’t feel inspired to continue the conversation.
I have faith that logic is essential to work out what is the path, but it is useless to work out what is wisdom, that requires walking the path, not just thinking logically. Thus I have a place for science, but don’t have blind faith in science.
