Doesn’t this already assume a “who”?
2 Likes
I personally think that it’s pointless to look for what exists outside of the aggregates, if there even is such a thing. The whole point is to let go, not to find something new to cling to. If you want something outside the aggregates, why not follow Advaita or any other such teaching?
My own personal opinion is that we should know “the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation,” and leave it there.
With Metta.
2 Likes
I said “who or what”, so my question doesn’t necessarily assume a “who”.
To put it another way, it’s like there is a part of us deciding to practice, pay attention, observe, and so on.
That part is presumably comprised of aggregates too, which is what I find paradoxical. Like there is an aspect of the aggregates that doesn’t regard the remaining aggregates as “me” and “mine”?
Well that is still assuming there is a “who or what”. What if there isn’t a “who or what” behind it all to begin with? When the Buddha was asked by ascetics “who feels?” he dismissed it, because they were assuming something that hadn’t been demonstrated. His reply was that it wasn’t a valid question. There is no “who or what” that feels. There is only feeling arising due to conditions. Get into asking “who or what” feels and you’ve missed the teaching and fallen into the thicket of views that plagued all the other ascetics of the Buddha’s time, most of them being arguments about a self that hadn’t been shown to be true to begin with but merely assumed to be so.
So our intention to practice only arises because of conditions?
Intention arises due to conditions, yes. Intention is part of nama. If it didn’t arise because of conditions it would always be, it would be a static existing thing.
It just seems inconceivable that we could “be” outside the 5 aggregates.
And perhaps that’s the point. Our sense of self, “being a being” is the 5 A.
Outside of that a ‘being’ ceases.
Excellent post, NgXinZhao; pretty much covers the gist of the OP.
Oh yeah, I am very much a disciple of Ajahn Nyanamoli.
In addition to being a disciple of Ajahn Nyanamoli, I also have read a lot of Ajahn Geoff and I do very much agree with Ajahn Geoff’s “non-self strategy” as a pragmatic ontology with respect to the metaphysics of anattā. The problem most non-arahants have is that they identify too much with the aggregates. Regarding the aggregates as alien is an effective strategy for such individuals to begin moving in the direction of non-clinging and an authentic understanding of dependent co-origination. However, as we are discussing in this thread, there does exist the less common but equally hazardous potential to, through regarding the aggregates as alien, take the position that we are something that is alien to the five aggregates. This hazard can be neutralized through the exact same strategy of anattā, but this requires that we not mystify that we which conceive to be external to the five aggregates. “That which is external to the five aggregates” as an idea, as a notion, as an intuition, as a strategy, as an attitude, as a vague experience, as a thought, as an ontology is, in any of its variegated forms of manifestation, always necessarily yet another manifestation of the five aggregates— a manifestation that is necessarily not mine, itself also alien. The five aggregates are both “merely” the entire cosmos and “profoundly” the entire cosmos. This is the ontological middle way: to recognize the very act of ontologizing as both deeply “grounded” and deeply “groundless.” There is nothing more than the five aggregates, but there is also nothing less than the five aggregates. As the Buddha said to Bahiya the Bark-cloth, (paraphrasing) “In the phenomena that are manifest in the six sense bases, let there simply be the phenomena that are manifest in the six sense bases.” To say that we are the five aggregates is to take them for more than they are and to say that we are not them is to take them for less than they are.
For it is in this fathom-long carcass that I describe the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the way leading to the cessation of the world. (AN 4.45)
That dialectical phrase, “fathom-long carcass”, is among the most beautiful and profound fingers pointing to the moon of dependent co-origination that the Buddha ever gave us. It is a phrase of great benefit to contemplate. “Phenomenologize” the very intellectual process of “ontologization” itself and the grounding of ontology will be short-circuited by the ungrounding of phenomenology and vice-versa, leaving you with only authentic understanding and dispassion as the result of the synthesis. With the upādāna of making more of the five aggregates, there is suffering. With the upādāna of making less of the five aggregates, there is suffering. The aggregates do not need you to make them into anything. The only way that you can make them into anything more or anything less than what they are is through believing that you can. Believing that you can is the exact extent to which you can. It is the extent of the world, the extent of ignorance, the extent of identification, the extent of security, the extent of insecurity, the extent of coping, the extent of craving, the extent of bhāva. Understanding that extent, there is letting go. As Ajahn Chah said, it is precisely Right View that is the place of coolness.
3 Likes
This is called a misconception, the thicket of views, the desert of views, the trick of views, the evasiveness of views, the fetter of views.
Idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, diṭṭhigataṁ diṭṭhigahanaṁ diṭṭhikantāraṁ diṭṭhivisūkaṁ diṭṭhivipphanditaṁ diṭṭhisaṁyojanaṁ.
MN2
Respectfully, I disagree. I could be wrong but it seems to me that there are two options: either we are simply the aggregates or there is something more to us than the aggregates.
If we are just the aggregates, its still impossible to say that there isn’t a self because the self is emergent reality based on the coalescing of the aggregates. The sum is more than the parts. Thats the thing people care about, not the parts.
Furthermore, on what basis could the Buddha say of the aggregates “this is not self” when their totality does equal a self? That would be very deceptive of him. Its possible that he considered “static” an essential characteristic of “self” but, at least for me and probably a great number of people, that isn’t part of how we define a “self”.
And finally, if we were only the aggregates, there would be no escape from them. Their ending would be our end, no different than death as conceived of by a materialist. Annihilation of conscious experience is not the same as freedom. Freedom is release! What is being released from the aggregates if the aggregates are all there is?
The other option is that there is something more substantial to us than the aggregates. And in fact, that is the only way “not self” makes any sense! Its precisely because we are not the aggregates that we can look at them and say, “this is not who I am”.
The key that helped me understand was that in Indian religions, where you direct the mind is critical. The first verse of the Dhammapada says that “Our life is shaped by our mind; we become what we think”.
It’s for this reason that lusting after the aggregates is dangerous: we will keep getting tangled in them. It is also for this reason that practicing the Brahma viharas allows us to be reborn as devas. And it is also for this reason that the absorptions practiced by Buddha’s former teachers allowed them to be reborn in the formless realms.
In brief, we become what we set our minds on. And we are in the habit of setting them on becoming a certain way.
The question then becomes: what would happen if we stopped setting our minds on becoming anything at all (including nothing)? This is what I consider Buddhism to be about. It is a subtle goal and vexing to describe since it is outside “the All” (since the mind is not set on anything within “the All”)
Indeed, a Realized One is hard to fathom!
AN 11.19…
“Absorbed in this way, the excellent thoroughbred of a man is absorbed dependent neither on earth, liquid, fire, wind, the sphere of the infinitude of space, the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, this world, the next world, nor on whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect—and yet he is absorbed. And to this excellent thoroughbred of a man, absorbed in this way, the gods, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:
‘Homage to you, O thoroughbred man.
Homage to you, O superlative man—
you of whom we don’t know even what it is
dependent on which
you’re absorbed.’"
Now, I’ve been using “mind” this whole time. I’m not sure that I’m using it in the same way as the suttas but aside from saying that the mind is something which a.) can be directed and b.) is capable of being aware and absorbed in something, I am not interested in defining it.
Defining it in terms of the aggregates would just get us caught up in the aggregates again and the reality is that it is outside “the All” and can’t be described. Its a simple placeholder term for something we must experience.
In any case, this is how I like to see it. It brings me joy and encourages me on the path. As I’ve said elsewhere, the kind of thinking that I am only the aggregates leads me to despair and even more clinging because they’re all I have. Being confident that I am more than the aggregates helps me to let go of them.
Allow me to draw a comparison. Imagine there was a materialist who was afraid of death and depressed about his future demise. A certain teacher comes along and says, “I can help you with your suffering because I’ve seen the true nature of being.” The teacher then goes on to say that the man has no reason to despair because he is clinging to a thing which doesn’t really exist. In actuality, there is nothing more than the elements. When the man “dies” there is nothing being annihilated because nothing permanent has been destroyed – the elements are simply being rearranged in a different pattern.
Can you see how this would be of little comfort to the man? The man isn’t attached to his elements, he is attached to his experience of life which depends on the elements. It is his experience which will come to an end, and it is that which the man fears and is sad about.
“Ah!” the teach may say, “it is your attachment to your experience which causes you grief. Therefore, you should be unattached, and you will live a happy life.” While this advice sounds wise, it doesn’t resolve the issue at heart: eventually this happy life will end and it’s that knowledge which troubles the man.
The only advice left is simply to tell the man that life isn’t worth being attached to because its full of suffering, which inevitably leads the man to asking why he shouldn’t just end it all then and there? But wait a minute… if life was so full of suffering, why would the man be sad about its ending in the first place? No, this advice isn’t good either.
The teacher then, has nothing to offer the man.
This is not too dissimilar from the Buddhism many people talk about and frankly, I have a hard time seeing how anyone is inspired by it. The only way I can see it being something of interest is if a.) someone is convinced that this existence is so horrible they wish for annihilation and b.) death isn’t the answer because they will just be reborn.
Instead, I like to think that the Buddha is offering us more.
1 Like
Seems we’re unlikely to convince you that less is sometimes more. 
Good luck on your journey.
1 Like
The quote you produced up there is assuming that an ultimate self exist. Whereas in the teachings, it’s very clear that all dhammas are not self. Not anything in samsara, not anything outside of samsara (that is Nibbana) is self. When there’s no self, the 2 options are not valid options since they rely on false concept. It’s like asking the rope which is mistaken as a snake, to declare: either the snake is poisonous or not. Since there’s no snake, both options are invalid.
What does makes it hard to think in the not self paradigm shift is to have certain confusion, certain attachments. Say if one (conventional) attaches to the notion of self as equal to the 5 aggregates, then hearing the teaching of not self, they get confused and ask, does the 5 aggregates not exist? They do. The 5 aggregates are directly known, but it’s just that they are not to be considered as self.
The selfing thing is active construction of self, actively building up the delusion of self, the sense of self, which itself is not self. One (conventional) may feel subjectively that there’s a sense of self inside here. That’s the delusion, the construction, of self. Since it’s constructed, it can be deconstructed. Hence it’s not a real self, it’s a delusion, a self making, an I making.
https://suttacentral.net/an3.33/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false
“Therefore, Sāriputta, you should train yourselves thus: (1) ‘There will be no I-making, mine-making, and underlying tendency to conceit in regard to this conscious body; (2) there will be no I-making, mine-making, and underlying tendency to conceit in regard to all external objects; and (3) we will enter and dwell in that liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, through which there is no more I-making, mine-making, and underlying tendency to conceit for one who enters and dwells in it.’ It is in this way, Sāriputta, that you should train yourselves.
In psychology, sociology there’s this book: The Self Illusion: Why There is No 'You' Inside Your Head [Extract] by Bruce M. Hood | Goodreads. Of course the author didn’t know the solution of what to do with the no self insight, so his conclusion is not leading to enlightenment, but the findings are clear to say that whatever self we may think we have (the 5 aggregates or beyond), analyse it, and it can be found that it’s all constructed. Fabrications, no solid core, empty of self.
Materialists don’t get it still, they still construct the sense of self, the way to end the delusion of self is not sufficient to see material things, body as not self, or to deny that mind exists, one really has to meditate deeply, see emptiness. When materialists thinks that life ends at death, there’s nothing further, it’s annihilation because they have the notion of self, the I am. If they do not have such notion, they would behave like an arahant, no accumulation of things, no possibility of having a spouse etc. They do not analyse, investigate deeply why do they still have the notion of self despite logically thinking that there’s just material things and the material things are not self.
Of course, there’s also rebirth for those who have not yet eradicated completely all ignorance. So that’s why suicide is not the answer to end suffering. And the Buddha did many times declared that samsara is terrifying, dangerous. SuttaCentral
“Mendicants, the boundless desolation of interstellar space is so utterly dark that even the light of the moon and the sun, so mighty and powerful, makes no impression.”
When he said this, one of the mendicants asked the Buddha, “Sir, that darkness really is mighty, so very mighty. Is there any other darkness more mighty and terrifying than this one?”
“There is, mendicant.”
“But sir, what is it?”
“There are ascetics and brahmins who don’t truly understand about suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. They take pleasure in choices that lead to rebirth … They continue to make such choices … Having made such choices, they fall into the darkness of rebirth, old age, and death, of sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. They’re not freed from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. They’re not freed from suffering, I say.
Wish for annihilation is still thinking from the perspective of self. Since there’s no self, there’s nothing to annihilate. There’s just dependent origination, and dependent cessation.
If you posit anything more, beyond which survives parinibbana of an arahant, whatever that is that you posit, that would be clung onto as self. That would then prevent the nibbana attainment. Thus it’s very important not to create any kind of self anywhere, in any kind of situation, in any realms, in samsara or in nibbana.
The aggregates are not self is ultimate. Conventionally, we just label them as a person to have some shortcut way of referring to things, but it’s empty of any real self. SuttaCentral
“When a bhikkhu is an arahant,
Consummate, with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Is it because he has come upon conceit
That he would say, ‘I speak,’
That he would say, ‘They speak to me’?”“No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
Though the wise one has transcended the conceived,
He still might say, ‘I speak,’
He might say too, ‘They speak to me.’
Skilful, knowing the world’s parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions.”
Perhaps this can be a point of meditation. It’s not that the things clung to doesn’t exist. The 5 clinging aggregates are known directly. It’s that there’s a “self” which can cling, that unexamined “self” which clings, is actually illusionary. A delusion. When it’s dispelled, there’s no subject to cling to anything.
2 Likes
Not necessarily. Say I’m correct and we are actually pure awareness. I have no reason to cling to awareness if that’s what I am. I can just let go and be.
There are these four kinds of grasping. What four? Grasping at sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, and theories of a self.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who claim to propound the complete understanding of all kinds of grasping. But they don’t correctly describe the complete understanding of all kinds of grasping. They describe the complete understanding of grasping at sensual pleasures, but not views, precepts and observances, and theories of a self. Why is that? Because those gentlemen don’t truly understand these three things. That’s why they claim to propound the complete understanding of all kinds of grasping, but they don’t really.
There are some other ascetics and brahmins who claim to propound the complete understanding of all kinds of grasping, but they don’t really. They describe the complete understanding of grasping at sensual pleasures and views, but not precepts and observances, and theories of a self. Why is that? Because those gentlemen don’t truly understand these two things. That’s why they claim to propound the complete understanding of all kinds of grasping, but they don’t really.
There are some other ascetics and brahmins who claim to propound the complete understanding of all kinds of grasping, but they don’t really. They describe the complete understanding of grasping at sensual pleasures, views, and precepts and observances, but not theories of a self. Why is that? Because those gentlemen don’t truly understand this one thing. That’s why they claim to propound the complete understanding of all kinds of grasping, but they don’t really.
You’re still stuck at grasping at theories of a self to say pure awareness or whatever that’s left over in parinibbana is what you are. Note that there’s a difference between clinging to pure awareness and the theory that that is my true self.
And the Buddha did warn at so many outsider’s doctrines. They can appear super profound to describe the complete understanding of sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, but if they lack the doctrine of anatta, they do not lead to the ultimate liberation from suffering.
It’s really ok, anatta is deep, just keep on meditating. Open your mind, then one day you might intellectually be able to understand and accept what no self means, and then emotionally there might stand a chance.
1 Like
I will be honest with you… yes, I am searching for a self. Before coming to Buddhism, I was a materialist. And frankly, in some sense I still am. I have not been convinced that karma, rebirth, or different realms actually exist, but I was willing to put all of that to the side in exchange for the hope of something more.
You see, as a materialist I see myself as being an emergent reality. I am comprised entirely of atoms, none of which is conscious and yet, here I am. Yes, you can analyze my parts and you won’t be able to find any particular atom or cell that is me but I still exist. And when my body stops working, my conscious experience of life will cease. It will be no different than going to sleep and never waking up.
I am looking for a worldview that gives me hope I can live eternally. Buddhists have made it abundantly clear they don’t think that is possible and so, I’m very close to abandoning it for Advaita or Samkhya. I was never convinced of rebirth to begin with so, Buddhism just doesn’t seem very compelling anymore.
2 Likes
Thank you for your honesty, infinitely better than trying to squeeze an eternal self into Buddhism. Perhaps you will find some happiness in whatever theory gives you hope, I suspect you won’t. The dhamma will still be here when you’re ready. May you be one day free from suffering and the cause of suffering.
Why is that? I got far more peace and joy believing I had a self which was separate from the aggregates than seeing myself as just the aggregates.
And thank you for your kind words! I hope for you to be free from suffering also.
1 Like
Rebirth evidences. https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/dktouv/buddhists_should_repost_rebirth_evidences_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Materialism philosophy a priori rejects rebirth, but science is not tied to a philosophical worldview of how the world should be. Science investigates, sees the data, then can make sense of the world. Data of rebirth evidences are there. Materialism is a false philosophy. It doesn’t reflect how the world truly works.
If you don’t work on uprooting the view of self, ignorance, delusion, etc, in effect, you’ll get reborn again and again, that’s some form existing again and again in samsara, just the down side is, there’s suffering involved.
Look at the big picture point of view, after you read enough rebirth cases of kids remembering past lives and they got the real life details which matches what the kids claim. https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/ir9p5t/the_big_picture_according_to_buddhism_and_how_it/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Big picture is, we are all eternally old already, having been through almost all the ups and downs in samsara, just not yet the happiness of Nibbana.
At Sāvatthī.
“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. … When you see someone in a good way, in a happy state, you should conclude: ‘In all this long time, we too have undergone the same thing.’
Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”
At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī.
“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving. When you see someone in a sorry state, in distress, you should conclude: ‘In all this long time, we too have undergone the same thing.’ Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”
Keep on seeing the sufferings in samsara. You see the people in war-torn countries? People suffering horrible disease imaginable, with their bodies decaying, with blood oozing out of their bodies? People locked in mental asylum, undergoing electric shock therapy? The animals who are led to be slaughtered? The girls who got kidnapped and forced to become porn stars? The mothers who lost their child just as their child graduate from university? So many people with depression and got bullied? So many elderly bedbound, having quality of life reducing by the day? There, we all had been there countless times before in some past lives, to infinite past.
You see some immortals in movies trying to end their life as their only goal? (Code Geass is one example). We are like that. Just that the trouble is, a lot of us don’t remember that we have lived before. A lot of us forgot how much suffering we had been through in hell realms. So reality in samsara is even worse condition compared to the fictional immortals who tries to end their existences. Suicide is not an option for us, for rebirth exists for those who are not arahants.
The path is now here, it’s so rare to be able to encounter this in so many lifetimes.
https://suttacentral.net/sn56.48/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false
“Bhikkhus, suppose that this great earth had become one mass of water, and a man would throw a yoke with a single hole upon it. An easterly wind would drive it westward; a westerly wind would drive it eastward; a northerly wind would drive it southward; a southerly wind would drive it northward. There was a blind turtle which would come to the surface once every hundred years. What do you think, bhikkhus, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole?”
“It would be by chance, venerable sir, that that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, would insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole.”
“So too, bhikkhus, it is by chance that one obtains the human state; by chance that a Tathagata, an Arahant, a Perfectly Enlightened One arises in the world; by chance that the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata shines in the world.
“You have obtained that human state, bhikkhus; a Tathagata, an Arahant, a Perfectly Enlightened One has arisen in the world; the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata shines in the world.
“Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is suffering.’… An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’”
Both views are not what the Buddha recommended. Both are suffering.
PS. Also, changing religion doesn’t change how the world truly works.
3 Likes
Not only can… but you will indeed live eternally in the Buddhist worldview… you just have to desire that!
As long as you try to be generous, kind and virtuous you are assured lifetime after lifetime in a multitude of realms, both human and heavenly - oodles and oodles of sense pleasures!! 
Think about that!!! 
SN55.21
Do not fear, Mahānāma, do not fear! Your death will not be a bad one; your passing will not be a bad one. Take someone whose mind has for a long time been imbued with faith, ethics, learning, generosity, and wisdom. Their body consists of form, made up of the four primary elements, produced by mother and father, built up from rice and porridge, liable to impermanence, to wearing away and erosion, to breaking up and destruction. Right here the crows, vultures, hawks, dogs, jackals, and many kinds of little creatures devour it. But their mind rises up, headed for a higher place.
There is no need to force yourself to become disenchanted with Samsara. Actually, that cannot be done precisely because there is no permanent all controlling Self. Disenchantment is a natural process. It will happen whenever it does. What’s the rush?
Whenever (if ever) you finally do get sick of Samsara and want to check out completely… the higher Dhamma will still be there, waiting to be discovered anew.
3 Likes