There is no self - article from Tricycle Magazine

[Apech]

http://www.tricycle.com/what-buddha-never-said/there-no-self

 

"When Vacchagotta the wanderer asked him point-blank whether or not there is a self, the Buddha remained silent, which means that the question has no helpful answer. As he later explained to Ananda, to respond either yes or no to this question would be to side with opposite extremes of wrong view (Samyutta Nikaya 44.10). Some have argued that the Buddha didn’t answer with “no” because Vacchagotta wouldn’t have understood the answer. But there’s another passage where the Buddha advises all the monks to avoid getting involved in questions such as “What am I?” “Do I exist?” “Do I not exist?” because they lead to answers like “I have a self” and “I have no self,” both of which are a “thicket of views, a writhing of views, a contortion of views” that get in the way of awakening (Majjhima Nikaya 2)."

 

[GrandmasterP]

Q: How many Zen masters does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. The Universe changes the bulb, and the Zen master stays out of the way.

A: A tree in a golden forest.

A: Three: one to change the bulb, one not to change it and one to neither change or not change the bulb.

A: One to change and one not to change is fake Zen. The true Zen

answer is Four. One to change the bulb.

A: None. Zen masters carry their own light.

A: Two: One to fetch the whacking stick and one to hit the new novice with it until he changes the bulb.

A: None: If a bulb is changed and there is no Zen master there to observe it then maybe the monastery has outsourced maintenance.

 

Serious point.

There are claimed to be 84,000 precepts of the Buddha and every school and sect since ever the lad bought the farm has cherry picked and re- imagined Dharma to suit their own agendas.

Edited March 31, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Apech]

Q: How many Zen masters does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. The Universe changes the bulb, and the Zen master stays out of the way.

A: A tree in a golden forest.

A: Three: one to change the bulb, one not to change it and one to neither change or not change the bulb.

A: One to change and one not to change is fake Zen. The true Zen

answer is Four. One to change the bulb.

A: None. Zen masters carry their own light.

A: Two: One to fetch the whacking stick and one to hit the new novice with it until he changes the bulb.

A: None: If a bulb is changed and there is no Zen master there to observe it then maybe the monastery has outsourced maintenance.

 

Serious point.

There are claimed to be 84,000 precepts of the Buddha and every school and sect since ever the lad bought the farm has cherry picked and re- imagined Dharma to suit their own agendas.

 

 

There are 84,000 collections of dharmas to suit the needs of the different temperaments of practitioners. As you can see from the article I posted the buddha refused to answer many questions because the message is not mundane or prosaic ... it is abstruse and mysterious - a bit like the Tao.

[GrandmasterP]

He maybe did answer those questions just that folks never quite 'got' his answers and ever since they have been striving to do so.

Tao has always struck me as Ch'an for nature lovers but without the historical-cultural BS.

Anybody can 'be' a Taoist but try to enact Ch'an or Zen without being ethnic Chinese or Japanese and , by and large; you're pretty much kidding nobody but yourself.

[yabyum24]

“There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes. It has survived so long because of its superficial resemblance to the teaching on anatta, or not-self, which was one of the Buddha’s tools for putting an end to clinging. Even though he neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a self, he did talk of the process by which the mind creates many senses of self—what he called “I-making” and “my-making”—as it pursues its desires.

This!

 

Seems to be the biggest "secret" in Buddhism today. Glad the author mentioned it.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Perhaps expounding the doctrine of anatta wasn't such a smart move in the first place.

 

Ha ha ha!

 

The tathagata wondered whether to teach or remain silent.

 

Ya win some, ya lose some.

 

on edit: yes, I'm being a trifle facetious.

...

Edited March 31, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Simple_Jack]

There are 84,000 collections of dharmas to suit the needs of the different temperaments of practitioners. As you can see from the article I posted the buddha refused to answer many questions because the message is not mundane or prosaic ... it is abstruse and mysterious - a bit like the Tao.

 

It only seems 'abstruse and mysterious' because in our confusion we normally misapprehend an entity in sensory experience. I think this particular sutta, where Buddha addresses Vacchagotta's questions on 'self', can be considered a provisional sutta. The implications of Buddha's insight into the 3 seals (anicca, dukkha, anatta) are clearly expressed in these two suttas:

 

http://measurelessmind.ca/anattasanna.html

 

The “seer,” “seen,” and “seeing” are all empty and insubstantial. The eye faculty, visible form, and visual consciousness are all interdependent aspects of the same experience. You can’t peel one away and still have a sensory experience — there is no separation. AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

 

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

 

Sensory consciousness can’t be isolated as separate and independent. Nor can any of these other interdependent phenomena. Even the designations that we apply to these various phenomena are entirely conventional, dependent designations. But this doesn’t mean that we should now interpret our experience as being some sort of cosmic oneness or unity consciousness or whatever one may want to call it. That's just another empty, dependent label isn’t it? The whole point of this analysis is to see the emptiness of all referents, and thereby stop constructing and defining a “self.”

...

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

 

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2]

Edited March 31, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Apech]

It only seems 'abstruse and mysterious' because in our confusion we normally misapprehend an entity in sensory experience. I think this particular sutta, where Buddha addresses Vacchagotta's questions on 'self', can be considered a provisional sutta. The implications of Buddha's insight into the 3 seals (anicca, dukkha, anatta) are clearly expressed in these two suttas:

 

....

 

 

I completely disagree. It is abstruse and mysterious. Otherwise you trying to rationalise something beyond rationality.

[asunthatneversets]

Śākyamuni discussed and explained in the Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra why affirming or negating the self is problematic. Which all comes down to identification and grasping. The 'self' is a conventional label ascribed to the dense structure of habitual tendencies to grasp (and identify with the figments of grasping). There is no self as such, the self is just a collection of propensities, so in that way there has never been a self within that web of habituation to begin with. However those habits are still the foundation that the afflictive abstraction called the 'self' is predicated upon, so as long as that affliction is present, the so called self is as well. Śākyamuni therefore said that grasping at either notion (existence or non-existence of the self) is simply the mind again identifying with something, and so that very act of grasping perpetuates the illusion of selfhood. This is why he was silent, because giving an answer that his disciples could identify with and grasp to would simply feed the fire of ignorance, which is the cause of the reference point called the self.

 

 

"Moreover, these sentient beings must have also discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conceptions of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self, because if they had not, their minds would inevitably grasp after such relative ideas. Further, these sentient beings must have already discarded all arbitrary ideas relating to the conception of the non-existence of a personal self, other personalities, living beings and a Universal Self. If they had not, their minds would still be grasping after such ideas. Therefore, every disciple who is seeking Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi should discard, not only conceptions of one's own selfhood, other selves, living beings and a Universal Selfhood, but should discard, also, all ideas about such conceptions and all ideas about the non-existence of such conceptions."

- Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra

Edited March 31, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[Apech]

This is all very fine ... but I still maintain that the realisation of no-self is mysterious and abstruse which is why the Buddha would not answer. Not the realisation of no self (which has no meaning really) but the realisation of no-self .... which like the realisation of emptiness is beyond words. The philosophical base is fair enough to establish a view to work from but it is of precisely no use when it comes to the actuality.

[asunthatneversets]

This is all very fine ... but I still maintain that the realisation of no-self is mysterious and abstruse which is why the Buddha would not answer. Not the realisation of no self (which has no meaning really) but the realisation of no-self .... which like the realisation of emptiness is beyond words. The philosophical base is fair enough to establish a view to work from but it is of precisely no use when it comes to the actuality.

 

The difference between "no self" and "no-self" is that the latter is a something?

 

And any communicated insight really fails to capture the actuality of any occurrence, this goes without saying wouldn't you agree? A description of the taste of an orange is not the direct taste of an orange. The description of these realizations is subject to the very same principle.

[GrandmasterP]

Yep.

Indescribable.

Hence why try beyond a koan- like...

"No self is like the taste of an orange."

( Meditate then discuss).

Edited March 31, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Apech]

The difference between "no self" and "no-self" is that the latter is a something?

 

And any communicated insight really fails to capture the actuality of any occurrence, this goes without saying wouldn't you agree? A description of the taste of an orange is not the direct taste of an orange. The description of these realizations is subject to the very same principle.

 

Its not really a something ... its more like perhaps presence ... empty presence perhaps ...

[doc benway]

"Seeing that all afflictions and faults

Arise from the view of the transitory collection,

And that the self is the object of this view,

The yogin sets out to disprove the self."

- Chandrakirti in Introduction to the Middle Way

 

And referring to a belief in a self independent of the aggregates:

"… those who subscribe to a belief in this kind of a self are categorized as non-Buddhists, while those who seek to refute this belief in a self are considered to be Buddhists."

- His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Mind in Comfort and Ease

[Apech]

"Seeing that all afflictions and faults

Arise from the view of the transitory collection,

And that the self is the object of this view,

The yogin sets out to disprove the self."

- Chandrakirti in Introduction to the Middle Way

 

And referring to a belief in a self independent of the aggregates:

"… those who subscribe to a belief in this kind of a self are categorized as non-Buddhists, while those who seek to refute this belief in a self are considered to be Buddhists."

- His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Mind in Comfort and Ease

 

 

Yes those quotes are about deconstructing the view of self and are valid in themselves of course. But taken from that view why did the Buddha not answer 'no' in the original quoted sutra?

[C T]

The Dalai Lama said, "refute this belief in a self..." that is independent of aggregates. The Buddha said the exact same thing, repeatedly.

[Apech]

The Dalai Lama said, "refute this belief in a self..." that is independent of aggregates. The Buddha said the exact same thing, repeatedly.

 

 

Yes I know. But then you end up with a simple statement of negation. So yes, the self which is the focus for our clinging, appetites, greed and so on... and more subtle forms of clinging ... does not exist except in a relative sense ... and it is easy actually to show that the idea of a separate, autonomous, solid self does not and indeed cannot be. Simple to prove but perhaps harder to realise ... but none the less there it is.

 

So lets get that out of the way and we won't need any more quotes to back it up.

 

So then once that false idea of self is gone .. what are you left with? Just nothing? Just a blankness? What?

[doc benway]

Yes those quotes are about deconstructing the view of self and are valid in themselves of course. But taken from that view why did the Buddha not answer 'no' in the original quoted sutra?

 

I don't think I can answer any better than asunthatneversets in post #9.

[asunthatneversets]

Its not really a something ... its more like perhaps presence ... empty presence perhaps ...

 

I see...

[doc benway]

Yes I know. But then you end up with a simple statement of negation. So yes, the self which is the focus for our clinging, appetites, greed and so on... and more subtle forms of clinging ... does not exist except in a relative sense ... and it is easy actually to show that the idea of a separate, autonomous, solid self does not and indeed cannot be. Simple to prove but perhaps harder to realise ... but none the less there it is.

 

So lets get that out of the way and we won't need any more quotes to back it up.

 

So then once that false idea of self is gone .. what are you left with? Just nothing? Just a blankness? What?

The inseparability of emptiness and clarity…

Not nothing, not just a blankness, in fact the potentiality for all manifestation empty of inherent existence…

[C T]

Yes I know. But then you end up with a simple statement of negation. So yes, the self which is the focus for our clinging, appetites, greed and so on... and more subtle forms of clinging ... does not exist except in a relative sense ... and it is easy actually to show that the idea of a separate, autonomous, solid self does not and indeed cannot be. Simple to prove but perhaps harder to realise ... but none the less there it is.

 

So lets get that out of the way and we won't need any more quotes to back it up.

 

So then once that false idea of self is gone .. what are you left with? Just nothing? Just a blankness? What?

I think one needs to take into consideration the crux behind the teaching of not-self, which is to end craving and aversion ultimately. The ending of craving and aversion forms the basis of bringing to the surface freedom and happiness, paradoxically, one's fundamental nature, which is no different from the nature of buddhas, except those who are not yet awake (another way of saying still caught by craving and aversion) are seldom aware of this.

 

The clarifying nature of this process does not point to the disappearance of a self or blankness or nothingness, per se, but the actualization of a relative self that experiences reality as reality is, backed by insight of its non-dual nature (of reality) which does not separate this relative self as independently existing.

 

If this relative self does not exist, contemplating precious human birth would appear quite redundant.

[forestofclarity]

The truth is not so simple. In my mind, this is not because the truth is mysterious or supernatural, but because words and concepts don't really line up with experience.

 

Take a simple object, such as a cup. Where is the cup? You simply have a collection of parts--- the rim, the body, the handle, the base. There is no cup. Or you simply have a temporary manifestation of earth-- before it was rocks, now it is ceramic, then it will be dust. Or you may say, where does the cup end, and the knowing of the cup begin, or the rest of the universe? Or what is the cup without the artist, the sun, the moon, the stars, society, trucks, and trees?

 

But if you want to drink coffee, nothing beats using a cup.

 

So if you were to ask me, "Is there a cup?" how could I say yes or no?

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

The self is relative.

 

The cup is relative.

 

Conditioned.

 

Subject to arising and passing away.

 

Knowing the relative, can we come to know the ABS SOUL LUTE?

 

ABS SOUL UTHER LEA.

...

[idiot_stimpy]

Flying the Soul Flute Absolutely.

[Apech]

The inseparability of emptiness and clarity…

Not nothing, not just a blankness, in fact the potentiality for all manifestation empty of inherent existence…

 

...yes the standard formulations the inseparability of emptiness and clarity, or emptiness and appearance, or emptiness and luminosity, or citta and prana ... and so on ... maybe we go to sleep with words ... again I would say this is not a rational formulation ... it is abstruse and mysterious ... why else is it ineffable?