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.
Anatta - True Self, no-self what?
Grayman
Veteran
I heard the term True self.
I heard there is no self.
This became rather confusing. I did some reading and it seems there is a conscious stream of selves. I suppose you could say that although there is no static self in the stream of consciousness there is a self at some moment and then another self at another moment.
What purpose does this concept provide in the totality of Buddhism? Why the argument of terms? Am I missing something here?
0
Comments
Anatta, AKA Anatman, means Not-Self, as opposed to Atman which is the Hindu word for Self (basically Soul). While the Hindus taught that the goal was to realize the true Self, which was a part of an even greater transcendent Self (Brahman I think?), the Buddha taught that all phenomena without fail are Not-Self. Not permanent, not independent, not a source of happiness... and that the only true source of happiness was in fully realizing that truth.
It almost seems like semantics, at times. Whether it's self or not-self that is the ultimate realization, what's left is still whatever you are and whether there's suffering or not. Suffering is really the issue. However I think the not-self approach is more conducive to seeing things as they really are, is more aligned with reality, than a soul-based (self-based) approach.
Spanning extremes enables one to be the mirror between the extremes, which illuminates the middle way. When you study buddhism in this way, the path between extremes of view becomes ever more apparent, and when you really go to town and investigate that world between extremes, there may be a sudden and sharp shift in perspective. And it leads you on...
The reality is there cannot be self without non-self, they are really one and the same, merely reflections on each side of a mirror, but are not the mirror, and at the sometime they are. There is another level this goes to but I struggle to describe it. I get the metaphor of Indra's net and it is a powerful one, and it can lead one to glimpse the essence that is dharmadatu.
... \ lol / ...
Forgive the diversion above, studying anatta can lead one to glimpse wisdom, which can never be grasped, only alluded to, and nothing is better than poetic metaphor to describe the indescribable. I believe you should have investigated your world thoroughly enough to have discovered that nothing is not 'no thing', and form has no substance, for anatta to make sense in this way. If you believe the world has substance, explore it again. If you believe nothing is 'no thing' explore that again. If you believe you are atta or anatta, well it looks like we are exploring them right now...
>
Yes. A whole lot of reading and research.
Self and Not-self are basic fundamental truths of your very presence and existence.
In a nutshell you are Grayman.
But if we were able to separate every single component that goes to make you - both the physical and mental constructs - and we're able to make lots of separate piles of them all - would they still be Grayman?
Everything is as it is, but is also otherwise.
Every compounded phenomenon is impermanent and in a constant state of flux.
Be it a car, or a thought.
You are your Self.
But you are not.
Look at a picture of yourself as a child.
It's you but not you.
See?
Yes, I see the creation of a grayman to the destruction of another to the next creation throughout a single life due to the changes that occur within and without. I am a changing being and I am not the same being although the container that is my body has pieces even though it is not the same pieces since birth.
The question remains why is the important to the totality of Buddhism? It seems to separate the self that is physical from the self that is not. This self must be the observer the conscious stream that can observe the thoughts and emotions of the physical self. But what is the importance of the no-self in the shedding of the physical self or false self?
Not-self and True self are apples and oranges -- completely different concepts (or fruit
)
The phrase "No Self" is not the proper translation, but 'not self' is, and to me anyway, makes more sense of his anatta teachings.
Whether or not there is a True Self hidden within a cosmic onion as a piece of a transcendent Being (such as Brahma) is the kind of question that the Buddha refused to answer. There's a sutta describing this. In a nutshell, the questions you ponder are of more relevance and importance than the answers you get.
If there WAS a True Self, and you knew it for certain, what would significantly change in one's practice/life?
If there truly was a transcendent Being, such as God or Brahma, what would significantly change? I'm talking substantive change, as opposed to change of 'belief' for instance. What real, tangible difference would it make?
Which leads ME anyway to a hopeful albeit agnostic faith in the existence of a transcendent "Being" (in the most comprehensive possible use of the word). Why not?
now i having been on this website for nearly 2 years now, it seems how the same questions keep on repeating and repeating - may be this is the way samsara also goes, just phenomena keeping on repeating - there are questions which cannot be answered and there are incomplete answers to those questions, which even though answering one part of question raises another question which again cannot be answered, and this phenomena also keeps on repeating - trying to describe the indescribable, trying to figure out by thinking which cannot be held at the first place.
now coming back to the question in this thread.
anatta means non-self or not-mine - meaning all conditioned things are not-mine or not-me, but what is there this still needs to be figured out through direct experience in meditation.
Hsin Hsin Ming says:
Those who do not understand the Way
will assert or deny the reality of things.
Deny the reality of things, you miss its deeper reality;
Assert the reality of things, you miss the emptiness of all things.
The more you think about it,
the further you are from the truth.
Cease all thinking,
and there is nothing that will not be revealed to you.
The true self is non-self and the true nature is Buddha nature :om:
anatta is telling that any conditioned thing is not-mine, in a way not ours - which is the way things are as since they are brought into existence through their causal factors and due to which depend on those causal factors for sustainance and on ending of those causal factors leads to their ending, so they are not in our control, so they are not-mine, otherwise if they were ours, then they should be in our control and act as we want them to act, which is not the case.
so anatta helps in keeping things as 'just they are' without adding anything extra to it - so anatta is removing the Iness or myness from things and seeing things as 'just they are' - in this way, it helps to reduce our attachment and aversion towards conditioned things, which can help in generating disenchantment, which can lead to dispassion, which can lead to cessation, which can lead to freedom.
>
Therein lies the key to accepting the 4 Noble Truths and transcending Suffering by releasing Clinging and Grasping.
When you truly Realise (capital 'R') that everything you cling to is subject to duality and is thus impermanent and will decay, Suffering decreases markedly.
It's one of the main differences between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Theravada generally say "not self" while some Mahayana schools generally say "true self" or "Buddha nature" which is "'a sacred nature that is the basis for beings becoming buddhas." that all beings have inside them. Some people see it as a contradiction, others don't.
It's been an issue of debate for centuries. 
Oh no it hasn't....
It's something that makes more sense, like a lot of Buddhism, upon experience rather than purely intellectual study.
In my tradition, it's not referred to as a true self, the stream of consciousness/Buddha Nature. There is nothing relateable between it and what you identify as your self now, other than the karma "you" carry.
It is important to Buddhism because the idea of "self" we have built prevents us from accessing that Buddha Nature. Our belief in our solid existence, in the separation of "me and you" that needs to be cut through.
Dear Grayman, I have a thread about the mind and meditation. Feel free to drop by and have a cup of tea.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/21192/the-mind#latest
Not a good idea in my opinion.
I would not investigate the complexities of advanced meditation until the basics are examined, scrutinised learned, understood and accepted as appropriate.
This is due to the difference between ordinary teachings, and what are called "supramundane teachings", or advanced teachings. Before his death, the Buddha gave some extraordinary teachings that were for his most advanced followers who had achieved a thorough understanding of the basic teachings and had successfully put them into practice. The final teachings appear, on a mundane level, to contradict his earlier ones. Instead, they go some steps further, into higher concepts that appear confusing to those still studying and working to master the fundamentals.
Before one can realize the True Self, or Buddhanature, one just first give up ego-clinging, and realize no self. When one has attained that stage, understanding that the "self" is an illusion, it is said that only then can one come into the realization of the True Self-- Buddhanature, and Buddhahood. It's kind of like learning to ride with training wheels, and when you get good enough at balancing, the wheels can be removed, and you're liberated to zip around on your own.
I do not know about the True Self and I think it is a misleading term. No self is a maltranslation.
Anatta is the doctrine of the illusory nature of the self. To translate it as no self just because atta means self is not correct.
The Dhamma borrowed a lot of words from the existing philosophies in india and changed their meaning to terms that were buddhist. Karma for instance is not the same as hindu karma.
Anatta means that there is no inherent value in anything other than in the minds of people.
Anicca means that all things are passing. No thing lasts forever.
Dukkha means that all things lead to the mind becoming unsatisfied.
What is relevant is noticing how the internal working of our self illusion work. And how every moment lead to unsatisfaction. Anatta, Anicca, Dukkha in every moment.
Well that last is not entirely accurate but will have to do.
.
/Victor
EDIT:
Actually the word Atta would IMO better be translated as Being. And the prefix a or an is better translated as un. So the literal translation would be unbeing which I think on the whole is a much better translation than no self which is ridiculous.
"I'm all of this, a human being. A person."
"I'm my mind, and my body is temporary and not-self."
"I don't own my thoughts, feelings, emotions, or any other thing arising in consciousness. They are all conditioned impermanent arisings... also not-self."
"I am consciousness itself. Awareness."
"I am this consciousness, individual but not unique, like an individual fire."
"This consciousness is dependently co-arisen, impermanent, also not-self. There is nothing to which to cling as self."
Through self-clinging we cause suffering. When we learn not to cling to self, we will cause less suffering. Not clinging to self starts with seeing what is not self. What is not self is that which leads to suffering.
@Grayman: Like @seeker242 said, "not self" and "true self" are more or less different sides of the same coin. It just depends whether or not you lean towards Theravada or Mahayana.
To put it simplistically, the Mahayanist "True self" can be understood as being the Theravadist "not self." True self = not self. Who "you" really are is empty of self.
Wondering what the OP is making of all this..?
The OP is in therapy after this.
I am wondering if @Grayman is not dancing faster than the music here.
There are some basics of Buddhism that you don't seem to handle quite well or that you constantly want to contrast with your preconceived ideas and it doesn't quite work that way.
First of all, empty your cup, as you've been told on another thread, and begin to welcome concepts which at first might sound too new, but maybe in due course begin to resonate with you.
Begin with some basic bibliography, like Thich Nhat Hanh's "The heart of the Buddha's teaching" and Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha taught," which are perfect for absolute beginners. Pema Chödrön has also some excellent books for beginners, like "Start where you are" and "The wisdom of no escape." You can't learn the basics just from the threads here.
More important, find a group to meditate, someone who can guide you, and also meditate a lot on your own.
Buddhism is not theory. Buddhism is practice. You have to practice what you preach here.
The Buddha was adamant about it:
"My teaching is neither a theory nor a philosophy, but the fruit of experience. Everything I say comes from my experience and you too can confirm it through your own experience. Words do not describe reality: only experience shows us its true face."
(Suttapitaka, Majjhima-Nikaya, Upakkilesa Sutta)
And honestly, don't get so entangled in your reasonings. You use too many words to describe air. Don't split every hair. Language doesn't serve you well.
Basically, our suffering stems from a distorted vision of reality. Part of that distortion comes from the fact that we want to find permanence in a reality that is not permanent. Neither are we. We are a bundle of cumulative streams of consciousness, but basically, this person we attach ourselves to with so much energy is just a figment of our imagination. Far from whining over the destruction of @Grayman, rejoice in the fact that you can every moment choose to be who you want to be, a new @Grayman, a better @Grayman, rather than a preconditioned @Grayman who should die as he was born.
Well put. And yes, @yagr, it wouldn't surprise me!
I'm also wondering how old is @Grayman? it may help us, if we know, to adjust our approach accordingly....
Sorry Victor for laughing, your post is insightful.
I found the idea of unbeing even more ridiculous than 'no self'. However in the context you describe . . . it is . . . exactly so. Dancing in samsara. Picnicking in the hell realms.
Why 'tis a thought unthought . . . To be or not to be . . . [I'll be jibbering to my ridiculous unbeing cushion in the corner if unneeded]
It was meant to raise an eyebrow or two. And maybe one corner of the mouth...or two.
But I think that translation actually says more about what is meant than no self.
Which is a totally the reverse of what anatta is about. How can you deny a thing that is illusion? Or how strange it is to attach the word True to the description of a concept whose illusory nature is instrumental to the Dhamma?
/Victor
I am wondering if @Grayman is not dancing faster than the music here.
There are some basics of Buddhism that you don't seem to handle quite well or that you constantly want to contrast with your preconceived ideas and it doesn't quite work that way.
First of all, empty your cup, as you've been told on another thread, and begin to welcome concepts which at first might sound too new, but maybe in due course begin to resonate with you.
Yes, i am aware of what I am doing. I am not trying to become Buddhist. I am trying to understand it. I want to know where it differs from me because I want to know what will change. Then when I have defined at least a small portion of what it is, I will decide to empty my cup or keep it the way it the way it is. The one thing I am determined to walk away with is an idea of what you see in Buddhism.
28 years. Married. Doing well in terms of my general satisfaction in life.
Thank you. It was my intention to avoid sounding patronising, and to "young ears" such commentary may be seen that way.
Excellent. All these dukkha-faced, sour-puss Buddhists are full of it . . . emptiness that is . . .or maybe that is just me. I would kindly suggest that Buddhism and spirituality in general can not be intellectually 'understood'. What you need is a taste. Yum.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/67.htm
. . . and now back to the ideas to walk away from . . .
And the fish went 'shhwish'
LOL @anataman, those children's books have bookoo deep meaning sometimes.
I was pretty disgusted with what was filling my cup when I took the plunge to fill it with the True (whatever that is). There were a few pretty decent things I kept mainly because they sounded exactly like parts of the teachings. My faith in the teachings stems 100% from how one can stumble upon them without ever having heard of Buddhism. They aren't 'Buddhist' truths, they are just truths and there are many many more teachers than the Buddha. I don't call things 'truths' with any sort of authority, just my best assessment, relatively speaking.
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:
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 (e.g, see this and this).
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 that 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.
I may have to come back to this and read it in the future when I can understand what everyone is saying.
Nibbāna is:
Total ease, complete calm, absolute freedom, perfect happiness & pure peace…
Absence of any uncertainty, doubt, confusion, any delusion and all ignorance…
Presence of confidence, certainty, understanding all, and direct experience…
Absence of any greed, lust, desire, urge, attraction, hunger, and temptation…
Presence of imperturbable and serene composure in an all stilled equanimity…
Absence of all hate, anger, aversion, hostility, irritation, & stubborn rigidity…
Presence of universal goodwill: An infinite & all-embracing friendly kindness…
This is what I see in Buddhism personally.
>
Take your time and please remember one important, vital thing: If you have any questions, or anything you need to ask - go right ahead. They say the most stupid questions are the ones you don't ask. We're here for you.
I
What's probably most confusing is that you have folks here from various schools and traditions of Buddhism. It's like asking a question about what Christians believe of a Catholic, a Southern Baptist, a Mormon, and a Greek Orthodox. You'll get enough difference in the answers to be confusing.
It's enough to understand that Buddhism as a whole does not include an eternal, unchanging, external soul or spirit separate from our physical forms. The details vary from one school to another.
Obviously that doesn't include your marriage....?
So obviously you are at odds with her; this is not a meeting of minds.
Your communication levels are disjointed and she cannot perceive the depths to which you think.
I seriously advise Counselling, but more importantly I am still of the opinion you should consider investigating whether you are suffering from a form of depression.
This tendency to retreat and inwardly hide, is distinctly unhealthy and dare I say it self-defeating...
I do not know where you said this Grayman but that does not sound too great. When I talked to my Instructor on a similar problem he gave me a pretty short answer. He said.
Raise your voice.
It means a lot of stuff but it begins with simply raising your voice. Showing that you are dissatisfied or angry. Taking place, If you do not show yourself and what you feel then how can she see you?
It worked for me.
The way to do it is not to let your voice become shrill. But to keep the tone low and still pump up the volume. Practise a couple of times in solitude.
There is more to say on this but then I need to learn the problem better. If you want you are welcome to pm me.
/Victor
PS
Works wonders with kids too.
DS
Actually, you touched on a very important communication issue in this. When I was young my father yelled at me a lot and I made up my mind to never yell at anyone 'at all'. A lot of us adopt our parents bad habits but a lot of us in our determination to not adopt them take it to the other extreme creating a whole new set of issues.
I have learned to raise my voice but I still am very careful and probably dont do it enough. My wife has recognized when a statement is made with anger and will say don't yell at me! Other people who hear my statement say, he didn't yell.
Well what can I say without knowing you two at all and not knowing the situation? There are a lot of techniques and strategies but winning is all in the application of it.
First of all I do not even know what you are trying to win? What is your Goal?
Feeling anger and expressing anger are not the same. I express anger when I think it will give desired effect. But it has nothing to do with if I really feel anger or not.
Now if you say something to express anger. And she says "Dont yell at me" and you stop. Then she has won that confrontation. Does not matter if you really yelled or no.
What ever she wanted you to stop doing you stopped doing.
At this stage turning up the confrontation might not be the best thing to do.
This is getting too complicated already. I second federica. Get counselling. For me to help you I would need to talk to you per video at least. I do have skype though so if you are willing to lay it out?
Sorry
Victor
The purpose of the teaching is that the ignorance of believing in an independent, isolated self provides the root or ground for all the other afflictions and sufferings to arise. By cutting this root the whole tree of samsara is destroyed, unless anatta/emptiness is realized our spiritual endeavors are just keeping our samsara tree pruned.
Terms really get in the way sometimes. The problem seems to be that people want it all to be more confusing than it has to be. In a sense, both the sentences at the beginning of the o/p are true in my opinion but it doesn't have to be a paradox unless that's all a part of the teaching method.
True self is no self because it is assumed that we all see the self as permanent when it is not. There is no permanent self... No self without everything else and there is always change. Even if all selves are a part of a bigger self, it is still not an unchanging and permanent self because with every new perspective there is a broader view, however slight.
Most of the confusion within the fundamentals seem to stem from confliction between terms. Altruism is selfish in the larger sense and that is a good thing if all selves are included in the self.
I like this thread, @federica -- it's not too old to bump is it?
I think federica recommends to start a new thread and post a link to the old one.
It was started May of last year. That doesn't seem all that old to me. (I don't want to have to click on a link every time I want to read it - I guess I'm that lazy.)
Well, this what I stated some time ago....
Why exactly are you 'bumping' it? What are you adding?
If it's just for reference's sake, you can 'star' it as one of your bookmarked threads....
Not adding anything...for now.
Do you have any idea just how many things I have bookmarked - and never gone back? The list is as long as 2 arms. Bleah. Every now and then I try to weed out the ones I know I won't go back to but won't delete any until I know what they are and yeah it's very silly of me!
I think it's a form of 'attachment'....