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.
Not-Self or No-Self
RichardH
Veteran
This is not an invitation to explain Anatta (yet again) but just about the common translation into English, and its effect.
"Not-self" or "no-self"? There is a real difference in the effect of these two expressions. Does "an-" translate "not" or "no" or does it signify a negation that does not translate precisely into either English word?
The reason I ask this is because of a problem that comes up with "Not-self". It seems to be frequently taken up as meaning this is not-self, and that is not-self, but somewhere there is something beyond words that is Self. In other words it is seen as a negative way of affirming Self by those who are so inclined.
I realize that no-self can be siezed upon as an absolute position, but it seems to me that not-self is more likely to be taken up in a way that mis-directs.
Any thoughts on this?
"Not-self" or "no-self"? There is a real difference in the effect of these two expressions. Does "an-" translate "not" or "no" or does it signify a negation that does not translate precisely into either English word?
The reason I ask this is because of a problem that comes up with "Not-self". It seems to be frequently taken up as meaning this is not-self, and that is not-self, but somewhere there is something beyond words that is Self. In other words it is seen as a negative way of affirming Self by those who are so inclined.
I realize that no-self can be siezed upon as an absolute position, but it seems to me that not-self is more likely to be taken up in a way that mis-directs.
Any thoughts on this?
0
Comments
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
Throughout the Pali language you can see it act in both ways, negating the affirmative qualities of the modified word, and describing a lack of the qualities of the modified word.
the old Western scholars, who were in comparative religion mode, focused on a translation of 'not-soul' or 'no-soul' but this is metaphysical & not the essense of the teachings
the essense of the teachings is in this world & life there are things (the five aggregates) and these things are 'not-self'
they are 'not-ours'
they are merely borrowed time & borrowed goods
Not-self is the correct translation of anatta.
Anatta is always used with respect to a particular dhamma (e.g. consciousness is not-self, perception is not-self). "No self" makes no sense in that context.
Since the experiential range of any individual's world is the five aggregates, or six sense bases... "no self" remains an unnecessary, speculative, unbeneficial speculative view that cannot and need not be proved.
If people interpret "not-self" to mean there might be a self somewhere else, then they are falling into speculative wrong view. This is not what "not-self" means at all.
Metta,
Retro.
I wonder if that translation of anatta is lacking in some of the depth you can find by studying the pali language, and in such the observations of the people's understanding of self.
Atta isn't just self... it also refers to a structure.. like a scaffolding. Also, a tall tower you lookout from. In regarding the self like this, it seems they associated these qualities with self, which to me makes sense. It could be extrapolated to the inner substantive qualities... the concrete qualities.
It is therefore incomplete to say anatta is simply "not-self" because in our language it can be quickly seen as "not-me" or "not-mine". Saying consciousness it "not-mine" is short sighted and incomplete. It is more complete to see it as "not a freestanding independent structure."
I feel it critical to steer the mind away from simply collapsing anatta into the "not-mine" interpretation of "not-self" because its not really about releasing the possession of the qualities, its about describing the nature of the qualities. Better to expand the understanding to include "without-substantive existence."
With warmth,
Matt
This means the practice of not selfing is incomplete; not selfing should be continued until no self is realised.
"This"...? You quoted my entire post.
Is your goal to know the 'truth' so you can tell other practitioners they are wrong? That would be silly...
Otherwise I would advise you to pursue the teaching that you believe in and see if it corresponds to your direct experience.
Is that the impression you get from the thread? Well now that you mention it I want to be proclaimed the final word on all things, so everyone else can be wrong wrong wrong. Your wrongness will make me squeak with self satisfied bliss.
OK.
If I have stepped on your toes at some point I do apologize.
Not-self would be better. You really cannot say no-self because that would mean a total void as in there is not even the conventional self which you refer to as "I" in conversation. IMO "not-self" would mean there is the delusion of a self created by the five aggregates but that is NOT a SELF; just the five aggregates.
By limiting the discussion to "Theravadin" interpretation, I fear you only highlight the truth that we will not come to agreement here on a single translation - or even, perhaps, a single understanding. In addition, this also underlines that there is not a single, normative 'Buddhism' but many 'Buddhisms', a rainbow of Buddhisms.
As a one-time translator and interpreter, I know all-too-well that translation is not transliteration and that any translation will in some measure betray the original text.
I agree.
One goes into the "Bahiya" mode; just seeing, hearing without an I.
Less chance of a miscommunication.
I would not dismiss or underestimate the Pali so lightly.
The Pali states:
This is the opposite of not-self. This seems to be seeking some 'wholeness'. 'A ground of being' or 'god'.
Not-self is rooted in impermanence & dependent occuring. Not-self in its most basic understanding arises from seeing the parts & not some 'whole'.
Indeed. Your point here is really departing from Buddhism. Buddhism sees insubstantiveness rather than whatever you are regarding as substantiveness & concrete qualities.
Your understanding is the same as S9's, basically Hindu, not letting go of awareness; not recognising the passing & dissolution of awareness.
The Buddha advised: This is some kind of metaphysics or psychology.
The purpose of "not-me" and "not-mine" is for relinquishment. Human beings suffer because their minds cling to things as "I" and "mine". Whilst "not-self" is true from the viewpoint of psychology/meta/physics, this is not its purpose. It purpose is to ending suffering.
Its purpose is to end dukkha.
Indeed. You have summed up the total difference in view perfectly here.
I can only disagree with you 100%, as I have already done & pre-empted from the beginning of my post.
Your viewpoint has little to do with Buddhism because it is not about the cessation of suffering.
Buddhism is 100% about releasing possession. Buddhism is not philosophy, which is about describing the nature of things.
Even when the 'not-self' you are referring to ('the description or nature of things') is seen clearly via direct insight, the result of that seeing clearly is still dispossession or relinquishment.
Sure. This is a more refined or profound understanding but you have missed the essential matter.
What ever understanding or realisation there is, the point of it is relinquishment of attachment.
If the mind realises "without-substantive existence" it still relinquishes, it still abandons clinging.
This is what the Buddha taught EVERYWHERE. This is his teaching.
In MN 37, when the Buddha was asked to summarise his whole teaching in five words, he replied: "Nothing is worth clinging to".
Kind regards
You obviously misread my words. I am not describing anatta as scaffolding, rather I am describing atta as scaffolding in order to broaden the meaning of anatta (not replace) from "not-me" to "without-substantive existence."
It is not just about the relinquishment of possession, but also is a simple and direct pointing at the lack of substantial "self" qualities in any form. Why? Because as you expertly quoted:
With warmth,
Matt
There is a spiritual saying about climbing scaffolding from the bottom instead of try to climb it from the top.
The Buddha used the word 'sunnata' rather than 'anatta' for what you are suggesting.
Kind regards
Yes, I can see climbing from anatta to sunnata as one works up from the solid bottom of the scaffolding.
Can you see the limitations of the english word "self"?
"Self" is a slippery word in English and means many things... that is why I spent time looking closer at atta. This is the experienced thread, looking deeper at the nature of things seems appropriate here.
With warmth,
Matt
Make up your mind.
Smile or frown.
"Whatever is seen or heard or sensed
and fastened onto as true by others,
One who is Such — among the self-fettered —
wouldn't further claim to be true or even false.
"Having seen well in advance that arrow
where generations are fastened & hung
— 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' —
there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/2-3.html
Thanks for that pegembara. Experiencing.
S9: There of course is Philosophical Buddhism, Scholarly Buddhism, Historical Buddhism, and Religious Buddhism just to mention a few, and that is not to mention the many schools and traditions of Buddhism. Most importantly there is the Buddhism, which is unique to each and every subjective individual finite self, which is continually changing as they progress in their intimate and direct understanding along our path.
Quite simply, or put beautifully by Simon, Buddhism is a “Rainbow.”
Thank you, Simon, for that. : ^ )
Trying to hog tie Buddhism and limit it down to one narrow idea or path just about kills our correspondence with others on this topic. All that leaves for these others is to either knuckle under to our personal viewpoint on the matter, or to walk away saying, “Whatever.”
This would certainly be a shame, when we have come here originally in order to share and grow through correspondence, in order to throw open a few windows and breathe some fresh air into our personal bias’ on this all important topic. : ^ (
Warm Regards,
S9
In MN 37, when the Buddha was asked to summarise his whole teaching in five words, he replied: "Nothing is worth clinging to".
S9: Does that include your ALL-important concept of relinquishing?
It is the mind that clings or relinquishes. Therefore if you see quite clearly that you are NOT in fact the mind, what is there actually to relinquish?
Warm Regards,
S9
P: There is simply the experience in & of itself.
S9: This “Experience” IS exactly what some call the ‘Transcendent Self,’ not to be confused with any mental configuration or ego self.
Q: “…there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened."
S9: Because this “Experience” is not outside or objective to our “Original Self,” but rather synonymous to it, there is absolutely no need to fasten to, cling to, or try to own it. It simply “IS,” or what some have called “Suchness.”
Friendly Regards,
S9
AM: Can you see the limitations of the English word "self"?
S9: All words are limited in this way. Unless a person has experienced, personally, what Enlightenment, Being Awakened, or Self Realization Is, how could a word of any description convey this fully?
We can point to any experience, but then it is incumbent upon the person we are directing towards it, to “walk the walk” and to find out intimately, exactly what is being pointed at. We cannot say this experience. Everyone needs to be put it on, and to live it directly.
Try explaining the taste of an orange to someone who has never eaten an orange. You might say an orange is similar to a tangerine and be correct to a degree. But, a person could eat a barrel full of tangerines and still not experience an orange in this way.
In this same fashion, we can only hope to truly understand an orange fully, or the taste of Realization, by personally biting into the fruit.
So in this way, I am agreeing with you, yes, but with a few added details I hope may help some to see my meaning here.
Warm Regards,
S9
The OP was about a particular Theravadin teaching. Your insistence on pushing Self is simply out of context. Let it go already.
OP/R: The reason I ask this is because of a problem that comes up with "Not-self". It seems to be frequently taken up as meaning this is not-self, and that is not-self, but somewhere there is something beyond words that is Self. <<<(Right there you bring up the Self.) Didn’t you, asks S9?
R: In other words it is seen as a negative way of affirming Self by those who are so inclined.
S9: Go figure! ; ^ )
R: The OP was about a particular Theravadin teaching. Your insistence on pushing Self is simply out of context. Let it go already.
S9: I saw absolutely no mention that only Theravadin need to reply to this PUBLIC posting.
: ^ (
I was merely saying why other persons (rightfully or wrongfully) might see these words quite differently than you see them. No reason to get angry, or is it confused, my friend.
Folks/Strokes as you have said other times. ; ^ )
Language being dualistic in nature would certainly always imply an opposite notion in order to make sense, just like up and down or in and out only make sense together in the mind.
If there is no such thing as a “self,” what on earth is a “not-self?” You can’t have one without the other to explain it. That would be like saying “no contets”… yes it is meaningless because there is no such thing as a contet. ; ^ )
Therefore “No Self”, “Not Self” or even “Without Self,” certainly begs the question, “Than what IS the Real Self?” Or, “Where is this Real Self to be found?”
Buddha didn’t address what the Self was for multiple reasons IMO. One being that Self was a very common notion at the time that Buddha was supposed to be speaking. Also, he felt that if you could remove illusion to any good extent, what remained would certainly be the Truth, as in first things first.
This Self wasn’t manufactured by the mind, yet many were using the mind as a tool to find Self. This created a problem of being trapped in the mind.
I believe he hoped to direct people towards another method at least in the beginning. (The Hindu's in his time called this same practice Neti/Neti, or “Not this, Not that." Nothing new!
But as people often are inclined to do, they simply turned around and plugged in "not-self" where "ego self" used to be, and clung to that notion of "not self" instead. As you can see, I hope, this practice would also be mind bound.
Warm Regards,
S9
S9 "Therefore “No Self”, “Not Self” or even “Without Self,” certainly begs the question, “Than what IS the Real Self?” Or, “Where is this Real Self to be found?”
So thanks for demonstrating the difficulty.:D
Much affection Richard
Excellent posts from the Theravadins responding to Richards question #1.
Many thanks. _/\_
.
For those who have a bit of philosophical background, it may be helpful to consider that (1) the word stem is an-atta an-atman, which is a negation of atman that expresses the rejection of the existence of atman or eternal soul, and (2) the word phenomenal self (as in phenomalism) may be helpful to explain the not-self idea. Since "phenomenal self" is easily misinterpreted, I have come to use the term "empirical self" instead for the same purpose. The term "empirical self" may be associated with empiricism and the bundle theory formulated by David Hume that bears similarity with the Buddhist concept of the aggregate nature of the self, and the emptiness of the five skhandhas. The common problem with anatta is that it is often understood as a positive statement about ontology, whereas it is actually a negative statement about ontology.
The empirical self -in my understanding- is that which we commonly experience as self by means of (wrong) identification. This is a process rather than an entity, so it would be more correct to speak of "selfing". Then there is the larger transpersonal self, the citta and the karma that transcend this body and this lifetime. It is likewise a process rather than an entity. So, in my view there is a empirical self and a transpersonal self, which are ultimately the same, and which are -like all phenomena- empty.
Cheers, Thomas
A question: Who says this ongoing process, is not me? Can the process say,"This process is not me?" Isn’t that a contradiction?
Warm Regards,
S9
Continued : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.060.than.html
.
As an aside there seems to be big difference between more and less experienced Zen practitioners around the notion of "true self". People who read about it and maybe practice alone without guidance, tend to imagine a True self beyond the skandhas. More experienced students see that as a skillful means for emptying the subjective pole ( a form of "not I not I"). This emptying precedes a shift to experiencing without an experiencer.
S9: Granted this is absolutely true as far as it goes. However it is only because the sense objects are co-dependent and temporary that they cannot be considered the Self. Who does all of this appear to? Who exactly understands these are not the Self.
So often Buddhist present this world and mind as a process of perpetual motion, and never allude to what this process takes place within, or what fuels it. It is like a computer without any Awareness outside of cause and effect, and this cause never explains where its origin lies. Sorry I am not buying that I should just believe it without first experiencing it directly.
Of course the mind sees anything outside of itself as empty, meaning empty of mind objects. But this in a way makes the mind king. Since the mind is a process made up of thoughts, which are obviously temporary how could it possible support this so called ongoing process? It sounds like magic thinking to me.
I am not saying the Buddha didn’t get it, by any means. I am saying that we don’t get the Buddha.
Everyone claims to understand what he is saying, but obviously are not than Waking Up immediately as He did. So also quite as obviously, He was seeing something that we are not. My educated guess is that He saw something transcendent of the mind.
I wish someone could point me in the right direction if I am wrong in this. : ^ ) But, please don’t expect me to swallow anything whole, esp. if it isn’t consistent with my own experience. I only can hope that others would respect this as it is exactly what the Buddha advised that we do, Investigate completely and with all of your might.
Buddhism isn’t a game of linguistic. Nor is Buddhism a dogma, where we believe and cherish every word in the Sutras as if they were like the “Words of God,” to be memorized and parroted. The Sutras are a map. It is a Way to rediscover our very own Buddha Nature, quite intimate, only if we "walk the walk," or "peel the onion to its core."
Warm Regards,
S9
Question: I wonder if you have noticed that it is easy at some point to disregard thoughts and come to see a blank screen. At that point you may identify with this blank screen, which is very restful, or even call it the “Not self.” Yet at the same time, when you get up off the cushion and go about life in the fast lane the blank screen is gone…Poof.
To be, because of this personal experience, it always seemed that the blank screen was just one more mind object. How, my friend does the mind’s inability to transcend this blank screen, many call nothingness or empty, prove there is nothing beyond the mind?
Please remember if you will that I am in complete agreement with you that the mind is simply a process, or what I call a dream. I also know the dreamer is a character in the dream. What I am asking is WHAT supports this ongoing dream? I have been on this quest for many, many decades…so experienced practitioner isn’t the dividing line between us.
; ^ )
Peace,
S9
I think you're touching on the root here of why it is intrinsically flawed to equate "not-self" to "not-me".
I caught some heat for offering that not-self is more equal to "without an independent structure", but as I practice, it remains the most consistent and logical interpretation of the word anatta.
Some of your posts do seem to describe a grasping... like you want an eternal self to exist, or expect it to exist somehow.
With warmth,
Matt