Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Does Buddhism miss the mark? Personally, I don't think so. Buddhism is all about happiness, which is why the Buddha basically approached the problem of mental stress and suffering like a doctor, formulating the four noble truths in the same way that ancient Indian physicians formulated medical diagnoses, i.e., disease (stress), cause (craving), prognosis (a cure/cessation of craving is possible), and treatment (the noble eightfold path).
When it comes to the teachings on not-self (anatta), different people have different ideas about the scope and purpose of those teachings, but there's basically three main approaches or interpretations: no self, pragmatic, and pro self.
In Theravada, for example, the general consensus (especially among those who put a lot of stock in the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentarial literature) is that there's no self to be found whatsoever, and you get passages like this from the Visuddhimagga:
Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen.
However, there are also those in Theravada who take a more 'middle of the path' approach, like Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who is of the opinion that "the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness" (No-self or Not-self?).
And then there are those who believe that there is a transcendent self, but that it's merely obscured by the aggregates.
As for myself, when I first started out, I was decidedly in the no self category since most of the books and teachers I had stressed this interpretation. But after studying and contemplating the teachings more, I'm now of the opinion that the anatta teachings are ultimately a pragmatic, soteriological methods rather than a strict ontological statements about reality one must believe.
In fact, I think the Suttas are quite clear that, as important as having an intellectual understanding of the teachings is, people who are serious about ending suffering will eventually need to put these teachings into practice to see whether they really do lead to a true and lasting happiness. Simply clinging to views of self certainly won't do it; and it should be noted that clinging to the view 'I have no self' can be as much of a form of self view as 'I have a self':
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. (MN 22)
Ultimately, I think trying to approach the teachings on not-self from an purely intellectual standpoint runs the risk of turning them into a metaphysical doctrine of self, which I believe falls short of their intended purpose. The Dhamma itself isn't just a collection of words, it's something to be utilized, to be experienced; and the Buddha didn't teach anatta as a doctrine of self, he taught anatta as part of his overall strategy to overcome suffering.
The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (panca-upadana-khandha) are suffering, i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's suffering, which originates due to craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, and craving for non-becoming (SN 56.11). The teachings on not-self, in conjunction with meditation practices, help us to develop dispassion in regard to the aggregates and relinquish our attachment to them.
As SN 22.22 illustrates, clinging to the aggregates is like mentally picking up a heavy burden; and by putting that burden down through "the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go" of craving, the 'burden' of suffering is cast off. At the point, questions of self and not-self are no longer useful or relevant. As Sariputta warns in AN 4.174, asking what remains after the remainderless stopping and fading of the six contact-media "objectifies non-objectification":
The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.
All that's left is the 'highest happiness' (Dhp 204), the 'casting off of the burden' (SN 22.22), nibbana.
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. (MN 22)
Jeffrey: I don't understand how anyone could say that the self is proved by not-self? Or say non-self is proved by self. My teacher's liturgy says that all demons are cut through in the mind when non-clinging to appearance or to emptiness.
The variety of appearances is shining outside.. You teach us how to know they are illusory....snip....
When you don't engage in the arrogance of clinging to appearance and emptiness...all demons are cut through in the mind and mind is free in the unborn expanse.
I don't understand how anyone could say that the self is proved by not-self? Or say non-self is proved by self.
There are many ways to understand this. For example, one may have the view that the self is the perceiver, the 'one who knows,' that perceives the aggregates as being not-self. Or one may have the view that one is the totality of the aggregates, which are not-self, but perceives their material constituents (i.e., elementary particles) as being self. (In addition, it should be noted that the Buddha doesn't say 'proves,' he says 'perceives.') For a related sutta, see DN 9.
@Jason, That ^^^ sounds a lot like advaita vedanta or shentong TB, but I think you have to be cautious not to assess thumbnails or (unintentional) straw men in evaluating a tradition with several thousands of pages of documents in edition to yogic pointing out instructions. Pointing out instructions are similar to 'a strategy' of non-self in that it may just be a strategy. I will have to work up to studying shentong to be of use to such discussions, because I would like to understand and contribute to shentong due to enjoying the mahamudra vibe of my teacher. Personally my view on emptiness is to reach tranquility through correct perception of the aggregates which is called 'shravaka' view.
@Jason, That ^^^ sounds a lot like advaita vedanta or shentong TB, but I think you have to be cautious not to assess thumbnails or (unintentional) straw men in evaluating a tradition with several thousands of pages of documents in edition to yogic pointing out instructions. Pointing out instructions are similar to 'a strategy' of non-self in that it may just be a strategy. I will have to work up to studying shentong to be of use to such discussions, because I would like to understand and contribute to shentong due to enjoying the mahamudra vibe of my teacher. Personally my view on emptiness is to reach tranquility through correct perception of the aggregates which is called 'shravaka' view.
I don't know all that much about Vendata ot Shentong, to be honest. I'm just sharing my own personal understanding of the teachings on not-self vis-a-vis the Pali Canon.
If the nature of the mind were not clarity, fundamentally, it would be impossible to realize the non-self. Thus there must be a fundamental clarity that is deeper than the non-essence of the kleshas.
If the nature of the mind were not clarity, fundamentally, it would be impossible to realize the non-self. Thus there must be a fundamental clarity that is deeper than the non-essence of the kleshas.
That sounds similar to AN 1.49-52, although the deeper meaning of these sutta passages have been interpreted in a number of ways.
@Dakini, to my understanding, that which is unchanging, independent, and irreducible can rightly be called "self." Elementary particles fit this description, and can therefore rightly be said to possess "self" in my opinion.
As to your interpretation of anatta, change is one way to demonstrate a lack of self, yes, but so is reductionism (as used by the Arahant Nagasena). Whether or not the Buddha or Nagasena knew about particle physics is irrelevant -- we know about it now and it can be used to reduce objects just like Nagasena did with Milinda. The method is the same.
Nagasena went through all the individual parts of a chariot with Milanda and asked if any of the were the chariot -- the wheels, the pole, the axel, etc; when Milanda confessed that none of these were the chariot, Nagasena replied "A chariot does not exist! A chariot is just a word!" (that's compositional nihilism) My argument is the same as Nagasena's, I just take it further and ask what the wheel is, what the molecule is, what the atom is, etc.
But you are correct, ultimately we simply disagree about what Buddhism does and doesn't teach, and we may just have to accept that and agree to disagree
In advaita, they often give the following example: an object exists, then it is destroyed. But existence always is - and therefore this existence is the truth. Note it is not the existence of this or that object, BUT THE FACT OF EXISTENCE itself.
You may be interested in a certain Buddhist book called "Living Yogacara" by Rev. Tagawa. It's a little known book, but provides good intro into the Yogacara school of Buddhism and its approach to Consciousness/Reality. Yogacarin thought influenced a lot of schools we know today.
Comments
When it comes to the teachings on not-self (anatta), different people have different ideas about the scope and purpose of those teachings, but there's basically three main approaches or interpretations: no self, pragmatic, and pro self.
In Theravada, for example, the general consensus (especially among those who put a lot of stock in the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentarial literature) is that there's no self to be found whatsoever, and you get passages like this from the Visuddhimagga: However, there are also those in Theravada who take a more 'middle of the path' approach, like Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who is of the opinion that "the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness" (No-self or Not-self?).
And then there are those who believe that there is a transcendent self, but that it's merely obscured by the aggregates.
As for myself, when I first started out, I was decidedly in the no self category since most of the books and teachers I had stressed this interpretation. But after studying and contemplating the teachings more, I'm now of the opinion that the anatta teachings are ultimately a pragmatic, soteriological methods rather than a strict ontological statements about reality one must believe.
In fact, I think the Suttas are quite clear that, as important as having an intellectual understanding of the teachings is, people who are serious about ending suffering will eventually need to put these teachings into practice to see whether they really do lead to a true and lasting happiness. Simply clinging to views of self certainly won't do it; and it should be noted that clinging to the view 'I have no self' can be as much of a form of self view as 'I have a self': Ultimately, I think trying to approach the teachings on not-self from an purely intellectual standpoint runs the risk of turning them into a metaphysical doctrine of self, which I believe falls short of their intended purpose. The Dhamma itself isn't just a collection of words, it's something to be utilized, to be experienced; and the Buddha didn't teach anatta as a doctrine of self, he taught anatta as part of his overall strategy to overcome suffering.
The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (panca-upadana-khandha) are suffering, i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's suffering, which originates due to craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, and craving for non-becoming (SN 56.11). The teachings on not-self, in conjunction with meditation practices, help us to develop dispassion in regard to the aggregates and relinquish our attachment to them.
As SN 22.22 illustrates, clinging to the aggregates is like mentally picking up a heavy burden; and by putting that burden down through "the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go" of craving, the 'burden' of suffering is cast off. At the point, questions of self and not-self are no longer useful or relevant. As Sariputta warns in AN 4.174, asking what remains after the remainderless stopping and fading of the six contact-media "objectifies non-objectification": All that's left is the 'highest happiness' (Dhp 204), the 'casting off of the burden' (SN 22.22), nibbana.
As to your interpretation of anatta, change is one way to demonstrate a lack of self, yes, but so is reductionism (as used by the Arahant Nagasena). Whether or not the Buddha or Nagasena knew about particle physics is irrelevant -- we know about it now and it can be used to reduce objects just like Nagasena did with Milinda. The method is the same.
Nagasena went through all the individual parts of a chariot with Milanda and asked if any of the were the chariot -- the wheels, the pole, the axel, etc; when Milanda confessed that none of these were the chariot, Nagasena replied "A chariot does not exist! A chariot is just a word!" (that's compositional nihilism) My argument is the same as Nagasena's, I just take it further and ask what the wheel is, what the molecule is, what the atom is, etc.
But you are correct, ultimately we simply disagree about what Buddhism does and doesn't teach, and we may just have to accept that and agree to disagree