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.
The View There Is No Self is Wrong View
Victorious
Grim Veteran
There are so many people both pro Rebirth and Rebirth atheists that formulate arguments on what I believe is the false premesis that the self does not exist. So I am bringing it up for discussion.
My question is does anybody disagree with the below translation that the view there is no self is wrong view? And if so what is the motivation? I am really curios.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
"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."
citation from below link:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html
My question is does anybody disagree with the below translation that the view there is no self is wrong view? And if so what is the motivation? I am really curios.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
"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."
citation from below link:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html
0
Comments
(Which is why arguments about this are so ironic.)
What I am after is that so many seem to think that the Buddhist Anatta doctrin can be understood as literally meaning that "There is no self".
The below rows from the sutta mn2 is really saying that that view is not what the Buddha intended. Or so I have thought all my life. I am just wondering if there is any legit claim to think otherwise?
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: ... or the view I have no self... etc."
You can take anything you want to be "you", but it all changes, and it will all fall away to become new things. Don't cling.
My "solution?" If there were meaning to the statement "There is no self," there also would have to be meaning to the statement "there is no other."
Obviously that makes no sense in the human realm; which is our one and only realm for right now.
If you want to discuss not-this-human-realm then there's no language which we can use to do that with: therefore there's no way to make any sense out of it.
If you want to speak "poetically" please feel free to do so - realizing all bets are off as far as making sense is concerned.
FWIW.
Here, the Buddha has asserted here what is "inappropriate" yet the impression I have gained is your post is a kind of rebelliousness against what the Buddha is instructing.
As stated at the end of the quote, this is the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the CONTORTION of views, the WRITHING of views and the fetter of views of the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person.
Each of the six kinds of view within them includes the view of "I". These six views can be reduced to two, namely:
(1) "I" have a "self"
(2) "I" have "no self"
Both views are still caught in the thicket & rebelliousness of "I".
With metta
DD
It probably began when we needed to start referring to particular individuals, as societal roles began and humans really started working together for survival. The mistake was in taking this conventional usage and taking it to be ultimate reality.
This is why quenching the 3 poisons does not result in nothingness. It also does not result in meaningless sawdust of aggregates. The five skandas are a tool, but they are actually a mistaken vision of reality. They are relative truth, like "don't worry it will be ok". That is not a literal truth, but it can help.
Tell me do you give courses? Its just that I was thinking about going in to politics...
Good healt to you Man...or Woman
So maybe we should examine what we're posting to see whether or not it's contentious or niggling before we hit the "Post Comment" button? You two are carrying on a running "disagreement" interwoven throughout other thread posts, and I'm not sure the statement about V's "rebelliousness" or the strength of V's reply were called for- either one.
I mean what's all this about souls and such? That doesn't keep us in the world, but it makes us feel safe, like we'll never be lost. Well the truth is that we're never lost anyway (this stuff has always been here), but we think we are, and so we cling hard! We're so afraid, but of what? Of going back to where we were before birth?
The fact is that we like life (most of the time), and so we want to continue being a part of it. We think that when we die, that's it. Really, all of this goes on to become new things and keep experiencing life, just not necessarily in the same combination of aggregates. We have to let go of thinking we've got some "core" of being. We're just stuff working together!
Unless I am wrong. In that case they are enlightened animals
Kindly
Victor
There's really only mind and form. Capacity of thought is all that differentiates minds.
Sorry my Arch Fiend of NewBuddhist our banter is bringing discomfort to others obviously.
I have promised to take it down a peg. Could you maybe be so kind too oblige as well?
Kindly Victorious
It's called "taking your ball away" or "go find somewhere else to make your empty noise."
Got it?
Sorry Fede
:dunce:
:aol:
Does one have to have a concept of a concept of self to have a illusion of self? Is there anything that points to that in the scriptures? Even singel cell organisms shy away from unpleasentness. Why would they do that if not to preserve the "self"?
...
"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.
"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html
Anyhow if you're aware of the idea of emptiness, than you have likely heard the idea of there is obviously a "body" here. Just like if you see an object flying at you, you will move, or raise your arms: it is reflect. There is a physical body to protect. However, when you look at emptiness you learn of the idea of a non-inherent existence. Meaning there is obviously a person (you) but however what you define as yourself isn't stagnant. If it were you wouldn't learn, remember, want or desire etc. People wouldn't be able to change.
I don't think the idea of no-self is as much as you're making it. There is a self. But it's just like any other thing in the world a series of circumstances all combined into one, to give something an existence, however not permanent nor inherent.
With DNA as the blueprint and all conditions accounted for, conception occurs and a mind-body complex begins absorbing nutriment and growing, changing. This continues for some amount of time and then stops, at which point the material is recycled, becoming nutriment for other things to grow at some point.
Life is always stopping and starting again, so you can't truly say that it stops at all. We just can't cling to our experiences without suffering the fact that it all changes, and we will come to a "personal end" no matter what we do. However that's not the end of life, just the way things go. Old out, new in.
We can cling really hard to thinking we have some kind of soul, whatever you call it (self, consciousness, and so on), but it's that very clinging that binds us; not whether there's such a thing or not!
My teachings say there is still the unconditioned. And that has a yielding spaciousness. A kind of motion, but there is no reference point so it is still. I conclude that there is still a mental experience but our ideas about that experience cause us to have fear and other kleshas.
But my teaching (vajrayana) says that the kleshas are distortions. When awake for example anger becomes the vision that sees through obstacles. Greed becomes a sense of beauty and wholeness in things as they are.
I think non-self to a certain extent loses its meaning to buddhists, but maybe it is a truth that has penetrated them and taught them wisdom. That is why it is hard to share with others from other traditions.
That which I 'disagree' with another from another tradition may be effective living wisdom in their life that has benefited them.
Clarity, openness, and sensitivity might sound meaningless or a brainwashed mantra to some people but it has a living truth that is relevant to this discussion (for me). I wish I could share it but probably I need to understand my teacher's pointing out instructions more thoroughly.
The unconditioned mind is empty, free and radiant.
The 'I' thought pattern ironicly thinks that it needs to control these discrete selfs but doesn't realize that all of that including the I thought is just thinking mind.
The wisdom is always seeking wisdom. The 'I' thought is responding to that and trying to get something. That ironically it already has, wisdom. A tiny spark of wisdom is all that is necessary. We just need to align to that wholeness.
Why?
A. because language has limits and
B. people rarely have the skill to reach those limits and not cross over them into nebulosity or absurdity
Poetry is better since it takes the pressure off and everybody can fly with it: it's hard to crash poetic.
He thought he had no self thats no jest
So he opened his mail
and started to wail
thank god I got that off my chest
Who thought that the self was an automaton
He posted his post
Which was then thought to be toast
So he went off searching for emoticons!
http://www.pic4ever.com/index.htm
Now, because you know red is not a literal model of the light perceived, do you no longer see?
In much the same way seeing through the mental impression of association (the process that creates identification with mental phenomena) cause it to stop all together? (Answer: Only if "you" know how to turn it off, and even then it's a long arduous path to tame the process.)
Also, besides being a fundamental, distinct, and ongoing mental impression the self is also a concept vital to operating in the world. To say there is "no self" is to deny the process and concept outright, to say there is a "self" without true understanding of it's components is delusion.
Of course you exist, but you are not separate from everything else, everything is one. Or at least this is what I have come to hear from nuns and monks... Somebody jump in with profound wisdom please ^.^
P
P
Given that there is nothing else BUT the 5 aggregates this seems to suggest that he was teaching that there is no self.
P
We KNOW there is a concept of self.
When we formulate arguments in the intellectual realm, we are adhering to a concept.
P
A. the superficial day-to-day tormented/lustful/responsible/tragic/comic etc self.
B. the "subtle" self, that part which gets transferred into other lifetimes over and over.
Obviously B is extremely difficult to detect.
A can be bombastic and do crazy things if left to it's own devices (due to past good/bad Kharma). It's got to be purified through all that Buddhist practice stuff (trying to be funny).
Seems just perfect that the overblown, bombastic self would be a disturbance, an illusion, would lack substance. Especially in a human-created world where lots of people are out of control! Basically because we're now biological; we're the types of animals which feed on other animals.
Two selves.
One full of illusory BS (probably because the genes are messing with us and don't care about us- biology is complicated!).
The other extremely subtle, enduring, barely personally and privately knowable while probably impossible to communicate anything about it to others.
Nah, I'm just imagining. Who knows? Though I do remember reading for about an hour this AM.