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.
self or no self
zidangus
Veteran
I often read posts from members which say that in Buddhism there is "no self" but from my understanding so far this is not exactly a true representation of Buddhas teachings or is it ?, for instance I cannot find anywhere in the Pali cannon where Buddha actually says "there is no self" and to make such a statement as there is no self surely leads you away from the right view of the middle way and into the wrong view.
This is described in more detail in the link below
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
This is described in more detail in the link below
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
0
Comments
But to make the statement that "to make such a statement as there is no self surely leads you away from the view of the middle way and into the wrong view" is in itself too extreme. It's my understanding that in terms of classical Buddhist philosophy, be it Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana, what is conventionally known as "the self" does not exist, but is rather a process taking place as part of a "grouping" of constituent parts or elements. So in classical Buddhist philosophy, the concept of "no-self" is very very important, and is in fact central to all other Buddhist thought.
There is a Zen/Ch'an story about a seeker that went to see Bodhidharma, asking "please help me settle my mind". Bodhidharma replied "Show me your mind and I'll settle it for you", to which the seeker replied "I cannot show you my mind because I can't find it to show you." Bohdidharma then replied "You see? I have settled it for you."
This is not done just to puzzle or irritate people- it's done to demonstrate the difference between "self" in the conventional sense and "self" in the ultimate sense. If we become too preoccupied with "self" in the conventional sense, then we end up driving ourselves crazy living by the dictates of that self. And Buddhism is about not driving ourselves crazy doing that.
Here is a classic text known as The Heart Sutra:
<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> The Short Teaching Regarding the Heart of Perfect Wisdom
The sincere practitioner Avalokitesvara
while intently practicing the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
perceived that all of the five phenomenal aggregates are empty of inherent existence
and was thereby saved from all suffering and distress.
He told Shariputra:
Form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness is form.
The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.
Shariputra,
all perceived phenomena are marked with emptiness.
They do not appear or disappear,
they are neither tainted nor pure,
nor do they increase or decrease.
Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling,
no perception, no impulse, and no consciousness.
There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind,
no mind to perceive,
and so forth
until it is clear that there is no realm of mental consciousness.
There is no ignorance nor extinction of ignorance,
and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of these phenomena.
There is no suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
nor is there attainment, because there is nothing to attain.
If the sincere practitioner depends on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation,
and the mind is not a hindrance,
without any hindrance no fears exist.
Far apart from every incorrect view one dwells in the final state of seeing clearly.
In the innumerable worlds and dimensions
all sincere practitioners depend on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
and thereby attain the final state of seeing clearly.
Therefore know that the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom
is the great transcendent mantra,
the great clarifying mantra,
the ultimate mantra,
the supreme mantra
which is able to relieve all suffering,
is perfectly clear,
and is beyond any mistaken perception.
So proclaim the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom.
Proclaim the mantra which says:
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha.
“Gone Beyond, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, gone to the other shore.
Clarity.
So it is.”
The view that there is no self and the view that there is a self are both forms of self-view. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on you how you look at it), the Buddha refused to directly answer whether or not there is a self, stating that he didn't see "any such supporting (argument) for views [of self] from the reliance on which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair" (MN 22). Instead, he focuses on events in and of themselves, as they are experienced, bypassing the question of self altogether. The Buddha said, "Who suffers," isn't a valid question, and suggests the alternative, "From what as a requisite condition comes suffering" (SN 12.35) in an effort to re-frame these questions in a way that's conducive to liberation, i.e., in terms of dependent co-arising. Hence, my understanding is that the teachings on not-self are ultimately pragmatic, soteriological methods rather than strictly ontological statements.
Self (atta), in the philosophical sense as opposed to it's conventional usage, is defined as that which is "permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change" (SN 24.3). Our sense of self, the ephemeral "I," on the other hand, is merely a mental imputation, the product of what the Buddha called a process of "I-making and my-making."
In the simplest of terms, the Buddha taught that whatever is inconstant is stressful, and whatever is stressful is not-self—with the goal being to essentially take this [analytical] knowledge, along with a specific set of practices such as meditation, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience. That doesn't mean, however, that the teachings on not-self are understood to deny individuality (MN 22) or imply that the conventional person doesn't exist (SN 22.22). The way I understand it, they merely break down the conceptual idea of a self — i.e., that which is satisfactory, permanent and completely subject to our control — in relation to the various aspects of our experience that we falsely cling to as "me" or '"mine'" (SN 22.59).
So in essence, the Buddhist teachings on not-self aren't merely assertions that we have no self; they are a method for deconstructing our false perceptions about reality, as well as an important tool in removing the vast net of clinging that gives rise to suffering.
This may be a bit of nonsense, but in one of the ways I like to look at it, the conventional viewpoint (sammuti sacca) explains things through subject, verb and object whereas the ultimate viewpoint (paramattha sacca) explains things through verb alone. In essence, things are being viewed from the perspective of activities and processes. This, I think, is incredibly difficult to see, but perhaps what happens here is that once self-identity view (sakkaya-ditthi) is removed, the duality of subject and object is also removed, thereby revealing the level of mere conditional phenomena, i.e., dependent co-arising in action. This mental process is "seen," ignorance is replaced by knowledge and vision of things as they are (yatha-bhuta-nana-dassana), and nibbana, then, would be the "letting go" of what isn't self through the dispassion (viraga) invoked in seeing the inconstant (anicca) and stressful (dukkha) nature of clinging to false refuges that are neither fixed nor stable (anatta).
Well, my sister's teacher (a Tibetan Geshe) says, "You think the self doesn't exist? Try slamming a car door on your hand and then try to tell me it doesn't exist."
It's not that the self doesn't exist, but that it's true nature is not anything like what we view it as. In that way, it "doesn't exist".
One very good visual representation of all this, that I have found, is in the NOVA Series The Elegant Universe with (?)Patrick Greene. The visual reduction of "things" down to their constituent parts (super-strings) in the first part of this series is an excellent visual representation of Buddhist reductionism.
Thanks.
I think his name is Brian Greene.
So IMO, yes of course we have a self. This self diplays sufficient 'persistence' to be recognised as an ongoing object (noun), but is ultimately an impermanent phenomenon (verb).
Namaste
" Vacchagotta the wanderer approached the Blessed One and greeted him. When they had exchanged courteous and friendly greetings, he sat to one side. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer, sitting to one side, said this to the Blessed One: “Master Gotama, does the Self (attā) exist?”
When this was said, the Blessed One remained silent.“But Master Gotama, does the Self not exist?” A second time, the Blessed One remained silent, and Vacchagotta the wanderer got up and left. Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Venerable Ānanda said this to the Blessed One:“Why, Bhante, did you not answer the wanderer Vacchagotta’s question?” “Ānanda, had I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer, ‘Does the Self exist?’, answered that the Self exists, that would have been to agree with those priests and renunciates who are eternalists. Ānanda, had I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer, ‘Does the Self not exist?’, answered that the Self does not exist, that would have been to agree with those priests and renunciates who are annihilationists.
“Ānanda, had I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer, ‘Does the Self exist?’, answered that ‘The Self does exist’, would that be consonant with the arising of the knowledge that ‘all things (dhammas) are without Self’ (anattā)?” “Certainly not, Bhante.”
“Ānanda, had I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer, ‘Does the Self not exist?’, answered that ‘The Self does not exist’, wouldn’t the bewildered wanderer Vacchagotta be even more confused, thinking, ‘I used to have a Self, but now it doesn’t exist’? "
The Buddha did not offer a clear teaching about the ātman. But the implication of this discourse is that the Buddha’s middle way cannot be satisfactorily expressed in terms of the Self, since it transcends conceptions of real existence and non-existence. To express this middle way in a provisional form of words, we can say that who or what we are is not fixed but in process – we are becoming who we are, such that the decision and actions of today are the conditions for what we will become tomorrow. Moment follows moment in our lives, each dependent on what has gone before, in a dependently-arisen process.