Why is"lack of control" proof of anatta / non-self?

The Watercooler
1

Dear all,

I have a question about Non-self: Our consciousness and our mind are said to be non-self because we can’t control them. But why does control matter?

Can’t the mind be our self, even if it has a “wild part”? The mind is not permanent, no eternal soul, I get that. But I don’t understand why the measure of control should be a criterion to decide if something is our self.

Most folks (without buddhist training) would probably say, “yes my mind is my self, I can even watch my thoughts with my mind. It is me and mine, even though it sometimes does things on its own.”

I too am stuck there.

Anyone help? Thank you :slight_smile:

1 Like
2

That’s quite true, more, even most folks with buddhist training as long as they are puthujjas, take something as “my self” and in this way they fall into sakkayaditthi.

Now, notion of selfhood is associated with perceptions of permanence and pleasure. But puthujja’s perceptions are distorted so thing which is taken as a “self” isn’t really seen as impermanent, regardless of what you just said that you understand that mind is impermanent. As long one is puthujjana one doesn’t understand Impermanence. Buddha wants us to see clearly things as they are, and they are all not-self.

Since notion of selfhood is associated with permanence, Buddha teaches us that it is serious existential contradiction to take them as “my self”. So we should step back and start to see them as “this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self”.

The same comes with notion of control. While common folks have no problem with taking things as “,my self” it is so because they don’t really see that notion of self is associated with perception of pleasure and mastery over the things. So this is very serious existential contradiction.

Do notice that at the stake is not just to establish the objective truth: yes, things are not self, let’s talk about something else. Buddha really wants one to see things as “not self” and not “mine”. In Dhamma notion of self is always associated with self-identification with something.

And the teaching about impermanence and lack of control “, merely” provides rationale for disidentification with things.

You can observe that some psychologists speak about “totalitarian ego”. This quite well describes the tendency to perceive things as being under one’s own control. But it is on emotional level and perfectly compatible with not understanding this very tendency in oneself on reflective level.

1 Like
3

Because that is what the pali word for self, attā, implies.

Here is the Buddha talking about it here in MN35:

“Well then, Aggivessana, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. What do you think, Aggivessana? Consider an anointed aristocratic king such as Pasenadi of Kosala or Ajātasattu of Magadha, son of the princess of Videha. Would they have the power in their own realm to execute those who have incurred execution, fine those who have incurred fines, or banish those who have incurred banishment?”

“An anointed king would have such power, Mister Gotama. Even federations such as the Vajjis and Mallas have such power in their own realm. So of course an anointed king such as Pasenadi or Ajātasattu would wield such power, as is their right.”

“What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say, ‘Form is my self,’ do you have power over that form to say: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that’?” When he said this, Saccaka kept silent.

So your body is not yours because you can’t prevent it or control it from growing old, dying and making you suffer. Sure, you can cover it with different clothes, or have plastic surgery or makeup, but you are only covering over the issue. Your body is out of your control and doesn’t belong to you.
And its not just your body, but every aspect of you. Your body, experience, perception, choices and awareness are all out of your control and you can’t just say “May it be like this or may it not be like that.”

I think a big part of what is going on that makes you confused is a matter of translation and context. Sure, you can call something that is destined to end, break apart, cause you suffering and be out of your control your ‘self’, but then that means you have something else in mind than the Buddha and other people in Indian society did when they used the word attā.

4 Likes
4

The question that comes to my mind is, if it’s not in your control then what makes it yours? :thinking:

4 Likes
5

It’s one of the properties something should have to make it worth taking as a self.

Imagine you’re feeling some kind of pain, wouldn’t it be nice just to not feel it?

It’s like when people tell someone who is depressed “just cheer up”, if that were possible there wouldn’t be depression, anxiety, angst, etc.

We lack any true mastery over our mind and body. Why then would we think “it’s us”? Seems like we just want to because we don’t know any better.

2 Likes
6

I believe that the point of the argument is that not even your mind or, in a way of speaking “soul”, is completely free and unhindered. It may feel as if it were - but it has limits and set characteristis, meaning that in the end it is just as conditioned as everything else.

2 Likes
7

I think it is good to have high standards when claiming something as ‘self’. I don’t know why I would happily accept a ‘self’ that is something which doesn’t support a lasting sense of contentment.

1 Like
8

Yeah, it’s not like the Buddha is saying “thou shalt not believe in a self”. He’s asking us, assuming we are mature and intelligent individuals, whether it makes sense to do so given these experiential facts of life.

It’s not even about irrevocable logical proof. You can take something as your self if you want to. But a person seeking their own welfare might be willing to stop doing that if someone very wise tells them it’s for their benefit to do so.

2 Likes
9

Suppose one would take mind to be oneself.
Then the mind comes up with a problem and it will begin looking for a solution. If one sees the mind as oneself they’d go along with it. Like this they will solve many problem together! Or if not a problem, if mind craves or desires a thing or a feeling, it will search how to obtain it.
Now, sometimes the difference between will of one and mind become apparent, such as when there’s an addiction, one decides to quit but somehow, someway or other the mind finds a way to continue it!
When, however, mind comes with a problem, craves thinking about it, but one does not go along with it, neither fights it, does not allow it to think what it craves, makes it think something skillful - it may feel like one is heaping “burning coals” over one’s head, figuratively speaking, or exposing the mind - and the feeling of being embarrassed of being exposed, or losing freedom (wrong freedom) - it does not get its way.

The advice from suttas is to master the mind and not let it master one. I’m sure you’d agree that its better to a master rather than a slave to mind. However, to accomplish this, the first step is to be aware what mind desires, craves, and what one decides. If one does not see the difference - then one has no clue if what they are doing is due to mind’s wishes, desires, cravings or one’s choice.

1 Like
10

And what “one” is that?

11

“one” as in “you”. → Master the mind, dont let the mind master you.

12

I don’t find the lack of control argument convincing. It’s contrived, IMO.

13

Yes, as @Aardvark pointed out “one” as “you”. For example it is stated in MN32 about Sāriputta.

“Good, good, Moggallāna!
Sāriputta answered in the right way for him.

For Sāriputta masters his mind and is not mastered by it …”

Sāriputto hi, moggallāna, cittaṁ vasaṁ vatteti no ca sāriputto cittassa vasena vattati.

In that case, what proof would you require to call something yourself, yours? Its actually quite hard to answer this question. An easy way out would be via belief in deteriorating temporary self - convincing oneself that there is nothing lasting, permanent, not subject to death.

14

I understood the point, but was asking what “you” in terms of the Dhamma was being referred to.

There’s the conventional “I” and “you”, as in the sutta cited. But the point being made sounds like there’s an assumption of a stable “you” that can master the mind or be controlled by it.
Mā hevaṁ.

15

No problem, I answered in that way not to reopen the atta debate.

Thou I think I can still answer in the following way:

  • the one who has faith, energy, sati, immersion, wisdom (these qualities are not destroyed on death of body, Bible calls faith yours, Suttas call sati as your territory, immersion as your wealth)
  • the one who takes on another body - gets reborn (called gandhabba - not said to die on death of body)
  • the one who desires or not desires, (desire too seems to not come to an end with end of body, as suttas state that there is desire to enter another body)
16

At least the EBT also do not teach there is nothing stable. There is that stable element of asankhata. But seeking stability in khandha’s or in constructed states, is not wise (dhamma eye sees this, i believe). The stable is arrived at when there is no grasping at arising khandha’s at all. The stable must have another base then khandha’s, fleeting formations.

Some buddhist take happiness or peace as the Path, like the Buddha also did.
He identified all that brings disease, unhappiness, lack of peace, burden. He removed it.

I believe this also means that Buddha, but also we, already know the peace of Nibbana, the unburdened, cooled, pure state, otherwise we are unable to identify those things that defile and cause burden and suffering.

We are not ignorant about Nibbana, we are ignorant in the sense we ignore it and do choose the wrong ways to happiness and peace.

When we practice according the teachings, i believe we cannot arrive anywhere else then in in this open (not grasped) dimension of coolness and peace. I think we can also say that is our true self, as our home.

This does not mean we have to regard peace and coolness as ourself. But we must just focus on removing defilements and the natural result will be Nibbana, our home.

A Buddha also shows a lot of control, much more then we do. He can even duplicate himself, and all kinds of amazing things. It is even said that if he wishes he can live much longer then a human can. Even for an eon.

To see rupa, sanna, vedana, sankhara, vinnana as not-self is, i believe, only a way to cure grasping and guide us home to Nibbana, the cooled state of peace without grasping, which is the end of the taking up of the burden in this very life.

1 Like
17

“Lack of control” is not a proof of anatta; but anicca and dukkha are the proof of anatta. However, you need to first see the reason why anicca phenomena (i.e. body-mental components, the five aggregates/sense-spheres) are dukkha. Then, you are able to understand the various terms/expressions for the notion of anatta, e.g. in SN/SA suttas:

Cf.: Pages 55-60 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (447.3 KB)

18

“Then, Master Gotama, I assert thus: ‘Material form is my self, feeling is my self, perception is my self, determinations are my self, consciousness is my self.’”

“In that case, Aggivessana, I shall ask you a question in return. Answer it as you choose. What do you think, Aggivessana? Would a head-anointed noble king—for example, King Pasenadi of Kosala or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha—exercise the power in his own realm to execute those who should be executed, to fine those who should be fined, and to banish those who should be banished?”

“Master Gotama, a head-anointed noble king—for example, King Pasenadi of Kosala or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha—would exercise the power in his own realm to execute those who should be executed, to fine those who should be fined, and to banish those who should be banished. For even these [oligarchic] communities and societies such as the Vajjians and the Mallians exercise the power in their own realm to execute those who should be executed, to fine those who should be fined, and to banish those who should be banished; so all the more so should a head-anointed noble king such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha. He would exercise it, Master Gotama, and he would be worthy to exercise it.”

“What do you think, Aggivessana? When you say thus: ‘Material form is my self,’ do you exercise any such power over that material form as to say: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus’?” When this was said, Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha’s son was silent.

MN 35

1 Like
19

Hi,

As you said, not to get too much into the weeds here, and yet:

The gandhabba refers to a conditional form of consciousness, sometimes referred to as viññāṇasota (stream of consciousness) and conditional factors that combines with nāma-rūpa in the womb, (DN15).
So there’s no inherent spirit or essence or “one” that’s moves from life to life.
As in MN 38:

The Buddha said to him, “Is it really true, Sāti, that you have such a harmful misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another’?”
“Absolutely, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”
“Sāti, what is that consciousness?”
“Sir, he is the speaker, the knower who experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms.”
“Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause?
Consciousness is reckoned according to the very same condition dependent upon which it arises.”

We can note that the Buddha does not offer any exceptions to this conditionality in this sutta or hundreds of others. There’s no mention of something like “But this conditionality does not include an awareness/knowing that is outside of time and space.”

There’s no inherent “one” who transmigrates, has faith, or who desires.
DO reveals how all this happens without an inherent or real “one.”

:pray:

1 Like
20

MN38 says that it is not vinanna(consciousness/vi-knowledge) that transmigrates. It does not deny that beings transmigrate, rather you’ll find many suttas that state that beings transmigrate.

In DN15 viññāṇasota that combines with nama-rupa can happen after birth, after gandhabba has entered. In this way these two concepts would be different and not same.

Bible teaches about spirit, so do Vedas.
Its really strange to consider spiritual training/teaching but not believe in existence of spirit.

Yes there are beings who have faith, MN100 uses word the word “mayhampatthi”

It’s not just Āḷāra Kālāma who has faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom; I too have these things (mayhampatthi paññā).

It is your belief that you believe you do not exist. I do not hold such view and consider it harmful. Why is that? For starters, it negates the spiritual life.
If what you say is true, that there is only conditioned phenomena, what would motivate a person to undergo this teaching & training which would result in their annihilation? It would be a complete annihilation according to this belief because once all conditioned phenomena cease, you believe there is nothing else. That’s why such view negates the spiritual life.