Author Topic: No-self, not-self, true self  (Read 11142 times)

Offline songhill

  • Member
  • Posts: 794
    • View Profile
    • The Zennist
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2013, 07:42:25 am »
The Buddha says that we are to see theories of the self or attavada as ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’ (M.i.40). In addition, it is the inmost self or paccatta/pratyâtma that realizes nirvana (M.i.255-256 ).

Come on songhill, the Buddha’s theories of the self? If you are talking theories, then that’s you interpretation of what the Buddha said. And, where is your concept of an “innermost self” to be found within the aggregates?

Concepts of innermost self are a delusion, a requirement that the logical mind be satisfied ie. the ego be satisfied (I know, ego is not a Buddhist term).  At best, belief in innermost self is a mundane belief by the run of the mill.  If you want to understand Buddhism, you have to step to then ultra-mundane, and understand that the aggregates represent the ‘whole’ psycho-physical body. From there anything is possible.

When you say "concepts of innermost self are a delusion" this too is ‘not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (na meso attâ)’. Directly realizing nirvana by the inmost self transcends "concepts of innermost self". BTW, I would not use the term "ego" it is a calque—and a very bad one at that. It nowhere comes close to the notion of attâ.

The five aggregates are not the alpha and the omega insofar as they are conditioned (our aim is the unconditioned). Again, they are the bad guys which are not the self (anattâ). We have to transcend them. In short we have to abandon desire for whatever does not belong to self (S.iii.78).

Offline BlueSky

  • Member
  • Posts: 628
    • View Profile
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2013, 08:18:03 pm »
Quote from: songhill
The five aggregates are not the alpha and the omega insofar as they are conditioned (our aim is the unconditioned). Again, they are the bad guys which are not the self (anattâ). We have to transcend them. In short we have to abandon desire for whatever does not belong to self (S.iii.78).

This case can be illustrated like you are sitting in the room, and a stranger with the sword entering your room. Because you do not know who that stranger is, you will be panic. You will struggle with your self to abandon him.

In this case how do you abandon him? Because you have the idea he bring sword and a stranger, you will do AN EFFORT.

And this effort can be like you fight with him or you chase him out of the room.

Only after that stranger is out of the room, then you can find your peace again.

I think this is the approach that many people do whether in their meditation, and so on.

And the consequence is very clear, enlightenment is the issue of after death.

There is no way for this approach, to come to realize that enlightenment is the issue of present (right now), instead of after death (Future).

The way they trancend 5 aggregates is after death. Because as long as you are alive, you will think that those 5 aggregates are always with you. THe evidence is easy, you can see your meaty body.

However, this approach is not right.

Because if in this life, you can see your meaty body as the aggregate, after death, although you don't have the meaty body, you will still have another aggregate, which is your consciousness.

You will fail to see consciousness as not your aggregate, because you can never separate from your consciousness.

This occurs in the dream.

When you are dreaming, your dream body is not your meaty body. But as a fact, at that moment, although your body is not this meaty body, but dream body, you still have the notion that it is your body.

This is because although you have abandon this meaty body, how can you abandon your consciousness aggregate? YOu can never separate from it.

You can never transcend aggregates if your approach is like someone who is casing out the stranger from the room.

You may be able, but only for the meaty aggregate. Beyond that, which is your consciousness aggregate, you can't. Because when you die, you leave your body, and your consciousness will go on.

That is why anyone who has the idea of abandoning aggregate, their way of thinking must be like the way of thinking of people with the concept of soul. There is this transference of consciousness from one life to another.

This kind of approach will not work.

Enlightenment is not the issue of future, but it is the issue of present.

If in your present you can't feel peace, never ever dream you will be in peace in the future, because you will always be in the present, and never able to be in the future. THere is no one ever be in the future, even they think so. They will always be in the present.

So, the way to transcend the aggregates is actually you sit silent and you must check this notion of aggregates. Although you feel there is this meaty body, this aggregate, where is that specific meaty body?

Don't take it for granted. Like someone who see mirage like water, and if they take it for granted, they will believe so, and they will waste their lives chasing water, which is never ever there simply because it looks like water. They take it for granted.

They never ever think: is that really water although it looks like water?

If you do the survey: Who ever think or have a question is this meaty body really body although it looks like body?
You won't find any.

Why? Because in the first look, indeed it looks very solid and looks very true that this is indeed body. No question.

But, if you have that mindset, your first impression has BLOCKED you, to check (investigate) further.

This is like anyone who see mirage as water. Because they are satisfied with the first look of this is water, this first look block them, and becomes the cause for them to take it for granted. And they will never ever realize that the water that they think actually is not water. It not even anything else.

In the same thing, Buddha taught us about 5 aggregates. And we must know that this 5 aggregates are simply his idea to clasify self into 5 aggregates component.

If you ask modern biologist, they may not classified human into 5 aggregates. Probably they will clasify that as 20 aggregates, and so on.

THe basic idea is by classifying what you feel of this self into 5 aggregates into its component, it helps you a lot systematically in your investigation to break through your illusion of self.

You check one by one in a very systematic way.

Start by checking your  aggregate form" or "matter", is there actually such thing called form or matter, although it look like that?
Then with "sensation", is there actually such thing called senstation, although it look like that?
Then perception, mental formation, and finally consciousness.
Check is there such thing called consciousness? If there is such thin because you think so. Don't take it for granted. But ask your self, is it in the toe, in the hand?

If it is in your hand, and you cut your hand, does it mean you have only 90% of conscious now?

Check one by one. Challenge yourself. And the way of checking is available in all buddhist schools, from Theravada up tp Vajrayana.

By the time, you realize that actually there are no 5 aggregates at all even at present moment, although it look like there are, at moment you can finally transcend them.

Only by the time you realize no consciousness, no form, no sensation, no consciousness, you will finally with full confident realize that there is no soul, no self at the present moment.

By the time, you realize now there is no self, no soul, no consciousness, (from your investigation of those systematic concetual division of sggregates), you will realize that actually even before you realize there is no consciousness, no forms, it is already like that in the past.

At at this point, you can come to certainty that actually the statement of buddha nature that you are actually by nature is always a buddha is a very true statement.

And also, because you realize there is no soul, no self, no consciousness, no aggregates, you will realize there is no crossing of lifetime to lifetime.

Therefore, there is absolutely no transmigration.

Because you finally realize that BY NATURE there is no birth, no duration, no death, which is coming from your realization of no aggregates, you have transcended all birth and death.

And birth and death, samsara and nirvana, are actually simply the conceptual game of the ignorant child.

It is critical for us to realize no consciousness, and no aggregaretes in the present moment. Because that is the key that free you from suffering.

But if take for granted your current perception of aggregates, like you take for granted that is water, you block your self to investigate, is that really water? is there such thing? Is there such thing called aggregate, and so on?

The only way to transcend aggregates is from investigation that in the first place there are no aggregates. And that is how we solve that issue.

Actually there is nothing to be abandoned, because by nature, actually there are no aggregates in the first place to be abandoned.

But if you try to abandon aggregates and the more to try to abandon aggregates, actually the more this delusion of aggregates get stronger.

You don't strengthen it by direct crushin it, but you strengten that delusion by rejecting it.

The more you abandon, you reject, the more your aggregates become very true, and at the end, you will never ever able to be free from aggregates.

Which in fact and by nature, there is no such thing.





« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 08:58:49 pm by BlueSky »
Enlightenment is simply the clearing away of misunderstanding. When mistaken thinking is gone, liberation has happened. (Gampopa)


When we verbally indicate a thing as 'this' or 'that', our words, like rabbits's horns, are hollow names, mere fictive imputation upon what does not exist. (Longchenpa)

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2027
    • View Profile
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2013, 08:22:17 pm »
When you say "concepts of innermost self are a delusion" this too is ‘not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (na meso attâ)’.
That is why the talk about "delusion" is baseless. If idea "concepts of innermost self are a delusion" is affirmed (as more as the play of aggregates) then this is called "aggregates are taken as 'I' or 'mine'".
However this cannot free affirmation of idea of "inmost self" from exactly the same context which is that aggregates are taken as "I" or "mine".
Why is this? It is because it's the affirmation of mere ideas (as more than that) which is the taking of aggregates as "I" or "mine".

Directly realizing nirvana by the inmost self transcends "concepts of innermost self".
Now here's the manifestation. Again and again this songhill affirms its mere idea of "inmost self". Why? Because the aggregates do cause this need for self-affirmation as self.
This songhill could have said:
Directly realizing nirvana entails abandonment of the "concepts of innermost self".
But no, it is saying:
Directly realizing nirvana by the inmost self transcends "concepts of innermost self".
Thus leaving as remainder still the affirmation of mere idea "inmost self" as more that just an idea which is the aggregates being grasped as "I" or "mine".

The Buddha never affirmed "self" and at the same time he never negated "self". He showed how the affirmation of dependently arisen sense of self as self does arise depending on conditions.
This songhill however takes the fact that the Buddha never negated self as a reason for affirming self. Thus is the deviation from the teaching of dependent arising. That is why it can be said that this songhill has an agenda which is affirmation of "self" but the Buddha did not have such an agenda. He just showed the dependent arising.


 :fu:
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 08:35:08 pm by ground »

Offline songhill

  • Member
  • Posts: 794
    • View Profile
    • The Zennist
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2013, 09:44:35 pm »

The Buddha never affirmed "self" and at the same time he never negated "self". He showed how the affirmation of dependently arisen sense of self as self does arise depending on conditions.
This songhill however takes the fact that the Buddha never negated self as a reason for affirming self. Thus is the deviation from the teaching of dependent arising. That is why it can be said that this songhill has an agenda which is affirmation of "self" but the Buddha did not have such an agenda. He just showed the dependent arising.


 :fu:

Are you sure the Buddha said this? "He showed how the affirmation of dependently arisen sense of self as self does arise depending on conditions." If he did, in what discourse does the Buddha say this?


Offline francis

  • Member
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2013, 10:34:25 pm »
When you say "concepts of innermost self are a delusion" this too is ‘not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (na meso attâ)’. Directly realizing nirvana by the inmost self transcends "concepts of innermost self".

That’s just sophistry.  It sounds good to say - ‘directly realizing nirvana by the inmost self transcends "concepts of innermost self", but it doesn’t make any sense from a Buddhist perspective. If you understood Buddhism, instead of making up stories based on what your ego wants to believe, then you would realise there is no innermost self to be found within the aggregates. 

Quote
BTW, I would not use the term "ego" it is a calque—and a very bad one at that. It nowhere comes close to the notion of attâ.

Have you ever wondered why the word “ego” upsets you so much?

Personally, I find it irritating when people regularly use gnosis when they mean satori, but I put that down to my catholic upbringing.

It’s not unusual for Buddhists to use ego. Chogyam Trungpa uses it in Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. “Walking the spiritual path properly is a very subtle process; it is not something to jump into naively.  There are numerous sidetracks which lead to a distorted, ego-centered version of spirituality; we can deceive ourselves into thinking we are developing spiritually when instead we are strengthening our egocentricity through spiritual techniques.  This fundamental distortion may be referred to as spiritual materialism.”

Quote
The five aggregates are not the alpha and the omega insofar as they are conditioned (our aim is the unconditioned). Again, they are the bad guys which are not the self (anattâ). We have to transcend them. In short we have to abandon desire for whatever does not belong to self (S.iii.78).

How can you say we have to abandon desire for whatever does not belong to self, when you are so attached to this “inmost self” you talk about? BTW, it’s a complete misunderstanding of anatta to say that because there is no self to be found in the aggregates, there must be a self.  That’s the ego talking, wanting it to be so. 

"Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean, is the moment the wave realises it is water." - Thich Nhat Hanh

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2027
    • View Profile
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2013, 11:07:06 pm »

The Buddha never affirmed "self" and at the same time he never negated "self". He showed how the affirmation of dependently arisen sense of self as self does arise depending on conditions.
This songhill however takes the fact that the Buddha never negated self as a reason for affirming self. Thus is the deviation from the teaching of dependent arising. That is why it can be said that this songhill has an agenda which is affirmation of "self" but the Buddha did not have such an agenda. He just showed the dependent arising.


 :fu:

Are you sure the Buddha said this? "He showed how the affirmation of dependently arisen sense of self as self does arise depending on conditions." If he did, in what discourse does the Buddha say this?
It reads "He showed" it does not read "He said". Nobody ever in this world can say "he said". Why? Because nobody ever in this world ever heard him saying anything.
The same holds true for "He showed".  Nobody ever in this world can say "he showed". Why? Because nobody ever in this world ever saw him showing anything.
So why then is it that one utters "he said" and the other utters "he showed"? It is just expression by means of words, is just conventional phrasing expressing either knowing or mere thinking.
When is knowing being expressed? Knowing is being expressed when words are applied knowing them to be a mere means of expression, and when while using words the accompanying ideas are simultaneously seen through as being merely dependently arisen as the play of the aggregates.
When is mere thinking being expressed? Mere thinking is being expressed when words are applied and accompanying ideas are takes as "I" and "mine" because these are not simultaneously seen through as being merely dependently arisen as the play of the aggregates but are affirmed as being more than just that.

 :fu:

Offline Spiny Norman

  • Member
  • Posts: 5080
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2013, 01:38:42 am »
I would not use the term "ego" it is a calque—and a very bad one at that. It nowhere comes close to the notion of attâ.

The five aggregates are not the alpha and the omega insofar as they are conditioned (our aim is the unconditioned). Again, they are the bad guys which are not the self (anattâ). We have to transcend them. In short we have to abandon desire for whatever does not belong to self (S.iii.78).

I agree on the "ego" point, because I think it only serves to create further confusion about what anatta is actually denying.  And even the word "self" is a largely modern idea, which probably muddies the water. 

I find it puzzling that the Buddha never seems to have made a clear statement about there being no self or soul.  The emphasis instead is on the aggregates not being self or soul, either because they're not fit for purpose or because we don't have full control over them.
So I think there is some ambiguity in the suttas about whether or not there is anything "beyond" the aggregates, particularly when there are references to the unconditioned and the deathless.

Offline francis

  • Member
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2013, 02:46:05 am »
I would not use the term "ego" it is a calque—and a very bad one at that. It nowhere comes close to the notion of attâ.

The five aggregates are not the alpha and the omega insofar as they are conditioned (our aim is the unconditioned). Again, they are the bad guys which are not the self (anattâ). We have to transcend them. In short we have to abandon desire for whatever does not belong to self (S.iii.78).


I agree on the "ego" point, because I think it only serves to create further confusion about what anatta is actually denying.  And even the word "self" is a largely modern idea, which probably muddies the water. 

I find it puzzling that the Buddha never seems to have made a clear statement about there being no self or soul. The emphasis instead is on the aggregates not being self or soul, either because they're not fit for purpose or because we don't have full control over them.

So I think there is some ambiguity in the suttas about whether or not there is anything "beyond" the aggregates, particularly when there are references to the unconditioned and the deathless.



Spiny, I don't think the waters are muddied at all. You have probable read The Three Basic Facts of Existence, III. Egolessness (Anatta) with a preface by Nanamoli Thera, but it may be worth a revisit.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 02:47:53 am by francis »
"Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean, is the moment the wave realises it is water." - Thich Nhat Hanh

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2027
    • View Profile
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2013, 05:29:00 am »
The middle way is hidden for the intellect because intellect oscillates between yes and no, between 'is' and 'is not'.

Non-affirmation cannot be dealt with by intellect because intellect can only affirm or negate.  Non-affirmation is felt to be negation but it is not. On the other hand non-negation is not affirmation.

The middle way is appropriately explained as "dependent arising/origination", but the intellect is trapped in "is it or is it not?"
It is greedy for self-affirmation (affirmation of its own constructs, i.e. affirmation of aggregates as "I" or "mine") because its sphere is yes or no, true or false, 'is' or 'is not'.


:fu:
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 05:30:39 am by ground »

Offline Spiny Norman

  • Member
  • Posts: 5080
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2013, 06:30:22 am »
Spiny, I don't think the waters are muddied at all. You have probable read The Three Basic Facts of Existence, III. Egolessness (Anatta) with a preface by Nanamoli Thera, but it may be worth a revisit.


Thanks, I will have a look at it. 

Offline songhill

  • Member
  • Posts: 794
    • View Profile
    • The Zennist
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2013, 07:49:42 am »
I would not use the term "ego" it is a calque—and a very bad one at that. It nowhere comes close to the notion of attâ.

The five aggregates are not the alpha and the omega insofar as they are conditioned (our aim is the unconditioned). Again, they are the bad guys which are not the self (anattâ). We have to transcend them. In short we have to abandon desire for whatever does not belong to self (S.iii.78).

I agree on the "ego" point, because I think it only serves to create further confusion about what anatta is actually denying.  And even the word "self" is a largely modern idea, which probably muddies the water. 

I find it puzzling that the Buddha never seems to have made a clear statement about there being no self or soul.  The emphasis instead is on the aggregates not being self or soul, either because they're not fit for purpose or because we don't have full control over them.
So I think there is some ambiguity in the suttas about whether or not there is anything "beyond" the aggregates, particularly when there are references to the unconditioned and the deathless.

It might be a help to you to read George Grimm's book, The Doctrine of the Buddha: The Religion of Reason. That aside, it is always the five aggregates that are the bad guys, not the self. The only time there is a question as to the self is with regard to a view of self. Viewable or conceptual selfs are the bad guys, too. View of self is always about the five aggregates. For example, "by adhering to consciousness, view of self arises" (S.iii.186). That the Buddha categorically denied the self (nattha-attâ) is nowhere mentioned in the Nikayas. The great Buddhist scholar Hajime Nakamura explains the âtman/anâtman problem this way.

Quote
"Thus, in early Buddhism, they taught avoidance of a wrong comprehension of non-âtman as a step to the real âtman. Of things not to be identified with the self, the misunderstanding of body as âtman is especially strongly opposed.  Foolish people comprehend their body as their possession....Buddhists of early days called this mis-comprehension "the notion on account of the attachment to the existence of one's body" (sakkâyadi.t.thi) and taught the abandonment of it" (Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples, 90–91).

What pop Buddhists have done is to make the verity of their arguments against the âtman rest on the five aggregates! This is rather astonishing if not altogether ludicrous. Reason dictates that the Buddha said the aggregates are anâtman because he awakened to the true âtman which explains why he said before he died, have the self as your island (attadipa) and refuge (attasarana). This is no worldly island or worldly refuge.

Offline songhill

  • Member
  • Posts: 794
    • View Profile
    • The Zennist
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2013, 08:31:41 am »
I would not use the term "ego" it is a calque—and a very bad one at that. It nowhere comes close to the notion of attâ.

The five aggregates are not the alpha and the omega insofar as they are conditioned (our aim is the unconditioned). Again, they are the bad guys which are not the self (anattâ). We have to transcend them. In short we have to abandon desire for whatever does not belong to self (S.iii.78).


I agree on the "ego" point, because I think it only serves to create further confusion about what anatta is actually denying.  And even the word "self" is a largely modern idea, which probably muddies the water. 

I find it puzzling that the Buddha never seems to have made a clear statement about there being no self or soul. The emphasis instead is on the aggregates not being self or soul, either because they're not fit for purpose or because we don't have full control over them.

So I think there is some ambiguity in the suttas about whether or not there is anything "beyond" the aggregates, particularly when there are references to the unconditioned and the deathless.



Spiny, I don't think the waters are muddied at all. You have probable read The Three Basic Facts of Existence, III. Egolessness (Anatta) with a preface by Nanamoli Thera, but it may be worth a revisit.


Nanamoli doesn't provide a single passage from a discourse by the Buddha which condemns the self. He only manages to plop something down from Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga which the Buddha never said.

Offline francis

  • Member
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2013, 07:20:35 pm »
Quote from: songhill
What pop Buddhists have done is to make the verity of their arguments against the âtman rest on the five aggregates! This is rather astonishing if not altogether ludicrous. Reason dictates that the Buddha said the aggregates are anâtman because he awakened to the true âtman which explains why he said before he died, have the self as your island (attadipa) and refuge (attasarana). This is no worldly island or worldly refuge.


When you say reason dictates, you are putting words into the Buddha’s mouth. That is your ego saying what it thinks is reasonable, not the Buddha.  It’s not true to say that the Buddha awakened to the true atman. The Buddha taught anatman (anatta) in his second discourse the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. He didn’t teach atman, which would have been fairly easy to do given peoples attachment to self.   To the contrary.

When the Buddha awakened he had to deliberate long and hard about teaching because he knew people would resist his teachings. Finally, he decided to teach because he knew there were some who would understand.  I think Walpola Rahula (not a pop Buddhist) sums up peoples reasons for resistance rather well in Chapter Six, What the Buddha Taught, The doctrine of no soul: Anatta, that I have quoted many times.

‘Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man; self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Ātman, which will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically.’

Quote
It might be a help to you to read George Grimm's book, The Doctrine of the Buddha: The Religion of Reason. That aside, it is always the five aggregates that are the bad guys, not the self. The only time there is a question as to the self is with regard to a view of self. Viewable or conceptual selfs are the bad guys, too. View of self is always about the five aggregates. For example, "by adhering to consciousness, view of self arises" (S.iii.186). That the Buddha categorically denied the self (nattha-attâ) is nowhere mentioned in the Nikayas. The great Buddhist scholar Hajime Nakamura explains the âtman/anâtman problem this way.

Quote
"Thus, in early Buddhism, they taught avoidance of a wrong comprehension of non-âtman as a step to the real âtman. Of things not to be identified with the self, the misunderstanding of body as âtman is especially strongly opposed.  Foolish people comprehend their body as their possession....Buddhists of early days called this mis-comprehension "the notion on account of the attachment to the existence of one's body" (sakkâyadi.t.thi) and taught the abandonment of it" (Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples, 90–91).


As Walpola Rahula said, people cling to beliefs in atman deeply and fanatically.  You select authors that suggest Buddhism is just another form of Brahmanism which confirm your belief of atman.  Your theories about Aryan buddhism etc. are also way off base.  Buddhism has more in common with the organic religions of the Indus Valley Civilization that predates the invasion the Aryans, and the Vedas.

Quote
Nanamoli doesn't provide a single passage from a discourse by the Buddha which condemns the self. He only manages to plop something down from Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga which the Buddha never said.


Songhill, it’s not about condemning self, it about understanding anatta. Read the rest of the article The Three Basic Facts of Existence, III. Egolessness (Anatta).

“He who does not understand the egolessness of existence, and who is still attached to ego-illusion, such a one cannot comprehend and understand the four Noble Truths of the Buddha in the true light.”
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 07:23:39 pm by francis, Reason: fix link »
"Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean, is the moment the wave realises it is water." - Thich Nhat Hanh

Offline Optimus Prime

  • Member
  • Posts: 892
    • View Profile
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2013, 11:44:21 pm »
Vacchagotta asked the Buddha:

Quote
"Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Source:  "Ananda Sutta: To Ananda" (SN 44.10), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, 12 February 2012, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html . Retrieved on 8 June 2013.

Anatta is a reflective tool as opposed to a doctrinal position, e.g., the Buddha says that the 5 Skandhas are not self.  So:
-  Form is not self, i.e., our bodies - are not self.  Our bodies are not really us because it just follows nature.  Uncountable numbers of our cells grow and die, yet "that which is aware" of these changes in the body (the growth of new and death of old parts of the body) does not die when the cells die.
-  Feelings are not self - a nice feeling arises and then ceases in our minds.  But "that which is aware" of the arisings and the cessations of the feelings - does not die with the dying out of those feelings.
And so on for the other 3 Skandhas.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 11:46:56 pm by Optimus Prime »

Offline Optimus Prime

  • Member
  • Posts: 892
    • View Profile
Re: No-self, not-self, true self
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2013, 12:00:35 am »
Quote
This via negativa method is most clearly displayed in the Buddha’s
second discourse, the Anattalakkha¼a Sutta (MV 1.6), also given in the Deer Park
at Benares and the teaching which caused the five companions all to realize
enlightenment, the liberation of the heart from all delusion and defilement.

In this discourse the Buddha uses the search for the self (attæ in Pali, ætman in Skt) as his
theme, and by using an analytical method he demonstrates that a ‘self’ cannot be
found in relation to any of the factors of body or mind; he then states: “the wise
noble disciple becomes dispassionate towards the body, feelings, perceptions,
mental formations and consciousness.” In this way, he states, the heart is liberated.

This explanation implies that once we let go of what we’re not, the nature
of what is Real becomes apparent
– this was the realization that the Buddha had
tried to communicate to Upaka when they met on the high road. And as that
Reality is beyond description, it is most appropriate, and least misleading, to let it
remain undescribed. This is the essence of the ‘way of negation’ and will be a
repetitive theme throughout the coming pages.*

p27 of The Island by Ajahn Passano and Ajahn Amaro

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal