There is no self - article from Tricycle Magazine

[Apech]

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.

 

Are not the teachings of not-self and also the precious human birth antidotes to obscurations?

[Apech]

Flying the Soul Flute Absolutely.

 

... whistling softly ....

[steve]

...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?

Yes, it is certainly beyond words, mysterious, and abstruse but, according to the teachings I've been exposed to, that is not the reason that the Buddha was silent when asked about the self. The reasons are as described in the post I referenced above.

That said, none of us can ever know why anyone said anything. We make assumptions and accept teachings, or not, and practice after our preferred fashion.

[GrandmasterP]

Over on Dharma Wheel there's thread after thread of folks bouncing sutras off each other.

"Flip Flobby Taka Sutra Sn 2.75 sub section B2 clearly tells us We must all wear a blue hat on Tuesdays in any month with an R in it.". Claims one poster to which someone is always always sure to respond along the lines of...

" Ah yes my blinkered Dharma chum but the Do Bop a Loo Lah. Ah Bam Bam Boom - sutra refutes your claim in Chapter 435, verse 47 paragraph 4 line 7 - where it shows Buddha telling us to wear red hats on ALL Tuesdays."

Then a Taoist pops in to say...

" Ah foolish Buddhists, my teacher the Venerable Taoist GM Long Chin transmitted to me via lineage the infinite wisdom of the ancients that on Tuesdays green hats are to be worn whilst confining oneself to a Tuesdays only diet of meat and potato snacks encased in short crust pastry. Hence we of the Green Hat More Pie sect are the only ones who actually know the truth of this matter."

 

It makes no more sense on DW than ever it does here on TTB.

None of us no matter who taught us what or whatever we've learnt since can, on this side of life; any more communicate the ineffable via the spoken or written word than could Buddha.

Sometimes you just gotta cultivate and see what happens.

Edited April 1, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Apech]

Yes, it is certainly beyond words, mysterious, and abstruse but, according to the teachings I've been exposed to, that is not the reason that the Buddha was silent when asked about the self. The reasons are as described in the post I referenced above.

That said, none of us can ever know why anyone said anything. We make assumptions and accept teachings, or not, and practice after our preferred fashion.

 

 

Yes I agree that post 9 is a reasoned explanation ... but I prefer my explanation or rather non-explanation. But then I would wouldn't I

[Apech]

Over on Dharma Wheel there's thread after thread of folks bouncing sutras off each other.

"Flip Flobby Taka Sutra Sn 2.75 sub section B2 clearly tells us We must all wear a blue hat on Tuesdays in any month with an R in it.". Claims one poster to which someone is always always sure to respond along the lines of...

" Ah yes my blinkered Dharma chum but the Do Bop a Loo Lah. Ah Bam Bam Boom - sutra refutes your claim in Chapter 435, verse 47 paragraph 4 line 7 - where it shows Buddha telling us to wear red hats on ALL Tuesdays."

Then a Taoist pops in to say...

" Ah foolish Buddhists, my teacher the Venerable Taoist GM Long Chin transmitted to me via lineage the infinite wisdom of the ancients that on Tuesdays green hats are to be worn whilst confining oneself to a Tuesdays only diet of meat and potato snacks encased in short crust pastry. Hence we of the Green Hat More Pie sect are the only ones who actually know the truth of this matter."

 

It makes no more sense on DW than ever it does here on TTB.

None of us no matter who taught us what or whatever we've learnt since can, on this side of life; any more communicate the ineffable via the spoken or written word than could Buddha.

Sometimes you just gotta cultivate and see what happens.

 

 

I share your objection to long sutra quotes as answers to questions in online debates. Although nothing wrong with studying sutras of course. Where I have a problem is with the idea that it is ok to block out paradox and ineffability with rational formulations. OK we need to reason and its a vital tool for our work but if it obscures those moments of uncomfortable unknowing with off the shelf answers then it is a block to practice. Which is after all the point for me ... that although I have had through my teachers an excellent schooling in the basics of the Buddhist view at heart I am a practitioner and more at home in the mystery of it all.

[GrandmasterP]

Aye, it's a mystery and that's a fact.

Logical positivism only gets anyone so far.

Wittgenstein's the lad for me when having these chats at work with nay sayers.

There's a lad who started out as the poster boy for the logical positivist posse and ended up saying...

"Whereof we cannot speak - thereof we must remain silent."

Didn't stop him writing books of course.

A Don's gotta live!

Edited April 1, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Taiji Bum]

Thanks Apech, I am sorta new to the Dharma and every new insight put simply and succinctly is a great help to me.

[Simple_Jack]

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

 

Is it really 'abstruse and mysterious'? When it comes to the intent and meaning of the Buddha's teachings it's really quite simple, but due to the propensities of habits, this isn't obvious: so in our ignorance we can't 'wrap our heads' around the message in Buddha's teachings. I'm not just referring to the thought realm, but sensory experiences in general.

 

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?

 

Vacchagotta was a confused wanderer, who features in several suttas, where he comes to the Buddha to ask questions. In that particular discourse, he was unable to wrap his head around the meaning of Buddha's teachings, and couldn't comprehend the Buddha's teachings outside a framework that infers a truly existent entity in sensory experience. There's always a certain context for each of Buddha's discourses, and they differ according to each circumstances, so keep this in mind when reading the tripitaka.

 

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?

 

Just experiencing the arising and passing of the five aggregates or the 12 sense spheres, unmediated, and without a reference to a subjective entity that perceives or cognizes experience; definitely not a 'merging' nor a 'oneness' of the subjective and objective spheres, but 'seeing' directly that there was never a separate subject for their to be a separation with objects; some 'thing' added due to sheer propensities of habit stemming from ignorance. Just seeing, just thinking, just hearing, etc. As the Buddha expounds in the Sabba Sutta [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html]:

 

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

 

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

 

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

...

 

Obviously, having direct insight into the meaning of buddhadharma, is entirely different from just having an intellectual understanding of the principles which informs its practice.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

I share your objection to long sutra quotes as answers to questions in online debates. Although nothing wrong with studying sutras of course. Where I have a problem is with the idea that it is ok to block out paradox and ineffability with rational formulations. OK we need to reason and its a vital tool for our work but if it obscures those moments of uncomfortable unknowing with off the shelf answers then it is a block to practice. Which is after all the point for me ... that although I have had through my teachers an excellent schooling in the basics of the Buddhist view at heart I am a practitioner and more at home in the mystery of it all.

 

While I can appreciate the 'wide-eyed' wonder, and seemingly paradoxical nature of the path, at the same time the majority of buddhadharma is not an 'irrational mysticism'. The Buddha's teachings are quite clear and explicit in the principles that are to become familiarized and cultivated on the path.

[steve]

Yes I agree that post 9 is a reasoned explanation ... but I prefer my explanation or rather non-explanation. But then I would wouldn't I

 

Here's another way to look at it.

It's not the self that is mysterious or abstruse, it is the Natural State, the Nature of Mind that is ineffable.

Buddhas have understood and explained the nature of the self many times over and helped many folks to get past it.

So when asked if the self exists or does not exist, the lack of answer had nothing to do with any mystery related to the self.

And the question had nothing to do with the Nature of Mind or the Natural State.

The question was posed in a way that would lead to an extreme answer and Buddha simply chose the middle way.

And I'll let it go there because if you prefer your answer, who am I to argue?

 

[Apech]

While I can appreciate the 'wide-eyed' wonder, and seemingly paradoxical nature of the path, at the same time the majority of buddhadharma is not an 'irrational mysticism'. The Buddha's teachings are quite clear and explicit in the principles that are to become familiarized and cultivated on the path.

 

 

No wide eyed wonder here. I also did not use the term irrational. I feel you are projecting rather onto my position on this. I am a practitioner and not a philosopher (although I like philosophy). To me the mysterious refers to that which cannot be spoken ... not to some kind of fantasy and abstruse to that which is not ordinarily understood as it is not accessible our ordinary mental processes.

 

We see the path differently. That's ok ... we will just have to agree to disagree on some things. While perhaps we will ahve common ground on others, such as the efficacy of the buddhadharma.

[Apech]

Here's another way to look at it.

It's not the self that is mysterious or abstruse, it is the Natural State, the Nature of Mind that is ineffable.

Buddhas have understood and explained the nature of the self many times over and helped many folks to get past it.

So when asked if the self exists or does not exist, the lack of answer had nothing to do with any mystery related to the self.

And the question had nothing to do with the Nature of Mind or the Natural State.

The question was posed in a way that would lead to an extreme answer and Buddha simply chose the middle way.

And I'll let it go there because if you prefer your answer, who am I to argue?

 

 

 

Of course we must all make our own minds up about this and other questions.

 

I was interested in the position taken by the writer of the original article as regards whether the Buddha actually ever said there was no self. And of course most people here seem to be utterly convinced that he did, and that it is clear what he meant. So I will slightly reluctantly quote from him (the Abbot of Meta Forest Monastery no less)

 

 

The belief that there is no self can actually get in the way of awakening. As the Buddha noted, the contemplation of not-self can lead to an experience of nothingness (MN 106). If your purpose in practicing is to disprove the self—perhaps from wanting to escape the responsibilities of having a self—you can easily interpret the experience of nothingness as the proof you’re looking for: a sign you’ve reached the end of the path. Yet the Buddha warned that subtle clinging can persist in that experience. If you think you’ve reached awakening, you won’t look for the clinging. But if you learn to keep looking for clinging, even in the experience of nothingness, you’ll have a chance of finding it. Only when you find it can you then let it go.

 

 

When I used the terms abstruse and mysterious I was not actually limiting myself to the self. I was including the buddhadharma generally. I know people probably find this odd or alarming ... or just wrong ... but I am reminded that on becoming 'enlightened' the Lord Buddha himself concluded that his enlightenment was uncommunicable and had to be persuaded to teach.

[Simple_Jack]

No wide eyed wonder here. I also did not use the term irrational. I feel you are projecting rather onto my position on this. I am a practitioner and not a philosopher (although I like philosophy). To me the mysterious refers to that which cannot be spoken ... not to some kind of fantasy and abstruse to that which is not ordinarily understood as it is not accessible our ordinary mental processes.

 

We see the path differently. That's ok ... we will just have to agree to disagree on some things. While perhaps we will ahve common ground on others, such as the efficacy of the buddhadharma.

 

Ahhh, ok. I'm just used to people taking "that which cannot be spoken" as meaning that it must be something nebulous or that it can't be pointed to. Take care!

[Simple_Jack]

Of course we must all make our own minds up about this and other questions.

 

I was interested in the position taken by the writer of the original article as regards whether the Buddha actually ever said there was no self. And of course most people here seem to be utterly convinced that he did, and that it is clear what he meant. So I will slightly reluctantly quote from him (the Abbot of Meta Forest Monastery no less)

 

The belief that there is no self can actually get in the way of awakening. As the Buddha noted, the contemplation of not-self can lead to an experience of nothingness (MN 106). If your purpose in practicing is to disprove the self—perhaps from wanting to escape the responsibilities of having a self—you can easily interpret the experience of nothingness as the proof you’re looking for: a sign you’ve reached the end of the path. Yet the Buddha warned that subtle clinging can persist in that experience. If you think you’ve reached awakening, you won’t look for the clinging. But if you learn to keep looking for clinging, even in the experience of nothingness, you’ll have a chance of finding it. Only when you find it can you then let it go.

 

Obviously, the Buddha taught that other than as a mere conventional designation, the 'self' does not exist as a truly established entity. I personally think that people get too caught up on the notion of anatta, as meaning either 'not-self' or 'no-self', and instead should be focusing on the relational aspect of this concept with anicca and dukkha; along with these implications with the Buddha's teachings on the 5 skandhas, 12 ayatanas, 18 dhatus

Edited April 1, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[steve]

Of course we must all make our own minds up about this and other questions.

 

I was interested in the position taken by the writer of the original article as regards whether the Buddha actually ever said there was no self. And of course most people here seem to be utterly convinced that he did, and that it is clear what he meant. So I will slightly reluctantly quote from him (the Abbot of Meta Forest Monastery no less)

 

 

 

 

When I used the terms abstruse and mysterious I was not actually limiting myself to the self. I was including the buddhadharma generally. I know people probably find this odd or alarming ... or just wrong ... but I am reminded that on becoming 'enlightened' the Lord Buddha himself concluded that his enlightenment was uncommunicable and had to be persuaded to teach.

Good points and good quote.

My initial quotes were not intended to contradict your OP, article, or "position" but rather to call attention to the wide variety of statements and positions in Buddhism that coexist and have their place. I should have made that clear.

 

And yes, at a fundamental level, there is much that is mysterious and abstruse about the Buddhadharma (to me, at least).

There must be if it is attempting to reflect reality.

The clearer the answers, the farther we get from the truth in some ways...

I think it is often the paradoxes and questions that defy direct answers that teach us the most.

 

It may be that Buddha was silent at times in order to require us to investigate certain things for ourselves rather than always relying on answers received from others - even Buddhas.

Questions are generally more useful than answers when it comes to our own spiritual growth.

[Apech]

Good points and good quote.

My initial quotes were not intended to contradict your OP, article, or "position" but rather to call attention to the wide variety of statements and positions in Buddhism that coexist and have their place. I should have made that clear.

 

And yes, at a fundamental level, there is much that is mysterious and abstruse about the Buddhadharma (to me, at least).

There must be if it is attempting to reflect reality.

The clearer the answers, the farther we get from the truth in some ways...

I think it is often the paradoxes and questions that defy direct answers that teach us the most.

 

It may be that Buddha was silent at times in order to require us to investigate certain things for ourselves rather than always relying on answers received from others - even Buddhas.

Questions are generally more useful than answers when it comes to our own spiritual growth.

 

 

Yes!!!

[rex]

Are not the teachings of not-self and also the precious human birth antidotes to obscurations?

Yes but more specifically I'd say that as part of the Four Thoughts that turn the mind towards dharma the teachings on precious human birth are designed to inject a sense of urgency, renunciation and diligence into one's mnd stream.

[steve]

Yes!!!

 

Ever read or listen to John O'Donohue?

"And if you want a point of departure for this new journey of soul, don't choose an intention, don't choose a prayer, don't choose a therapy, and don't choose a spiritual method. Look inwards and discover a point of contradiction within yourself. Stay faithful to the aura and presence of the contradiction. Hold it gently in your embrace and ask it what it wants to teach you."

[steve]

Apech, on 01 Apr 2014 - 05:33, said:

Are not the teachings of not-self and also the precious human birth antidotes to obscurations?

Yes but more specifically I'd say that as part of the Four Thoughts that turn the mind towards dharma the teachings on precious human birth are designed to inject a sense of urgency, renunciation and diligence into one's mnd stream.

 

I'm not sure agree with our precious human birth being an antidote.

It is certainly an opportunity, quite possibly a reward, and yet I don't quite see how it is, in and of itself, an antidote.

[Apech]

Apech, on 01 Apr 2014 - 05:33, said:

 

I'm not sure agree with our precious human birth being an antidote.

It is certainly an opportunity, quite possibly a reward, and yet I don't quite see how it is, in and of itself, an antidote.

 

 

Its one of the Four Thoughts that turn the mind to dharma and as such is an antidote to complacency. Meditation on this is part of the ordinary preliminaries.

 

"First the precious human birth is hard to obtain and easily lost. At this time I must strive to make this meaningful."

[C T]

Are not the teachings of not-self and also the precious human birth antidotes to obscurations?

Generally speaking, yes.

 

Yet, If you want to point to the ineffability of certain truths, then there is this need to get nearer the specifics, where not-self intends the practitioner to realize that suffering is not inherent, that craving is what brings it about, and that craving arises from a lack of knowledge and understanding of the truth of anatta, that when this truth is experienced clearly, it gives rise to the doubtless acceptance of the preciousness of this human birth. This wise acceptance in turn helps to propel the practitioner towards compassion thru the cultivation of the paramitas, and finally, arriving at the full-blown state of recognizing the 3 kayas and how the self is not apart from the kayas, nor are the kayas even mysterious to begin with. This is the wisdom aspect which completes the path.

 

Only then does the doctrine of not-self actually begin to make sense. And when this realization sinks in, do words and concepts still matter? Only at that point can one can truly assert the ineffability of Buddhadharma beyond concepts. Ineffable not because it is forever out of knowing's reach, rather, its been there all along, right in front of our noses, and yet not recognized. Thats why in pointing out nature of mind, the general after-thought among practitioners is how it was ever not seen before, being so simple and clearly there.

 

Of course this is the theoretical aspect of it. Aside from philosophical implications, practice in gaining a stable realization is doubtlessly left to each individual.

 

 

To summarise, Buddha said:

 

"The past should not be followed after,

And the future not desired.

What is past is dead and gone,

And the future is yet to come.

 

But whoever gains insight into things

Presently arisen in the here and now,

Knowing them, unmoved, unshaken -

Let him cultivate that insight."

 

The Buddha never once spoke mysteriously (or referred to what is arising in the present moment as ineffable) - instead, his straightforward encouragement was to develop habitual insight to what is happening now, in this way leaving behind past and future mental dwelling. Knowing presently, he said, one should remain in equipoise, and having settled the mind thus, wisdom reveals that which is obvious (reality like so). If the nature of reality is fundamentally mysterious, beyond knowing, how does one, enveloped by a fathomless unknowability, even hope to rest in equipoise? Its not possible at all, because by adopting such a mindset, there will always be the subtle hook of being caught by extremes. Maybe this is why the Buddha kept silent on certain issues.

 

Thats it from me. Thanks for a great topic... great for reflecting on certain things.

Edited April 1, 2014 by C T

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

There is nothing irrational about mysticism.

 

To say so is to display prejudice.

 

I am become the resolution of every paradox.

 

A parrot box, a parrot box, a most ingenious parrot box!

 

Baffling?

 

Mysterious?

 

Of course!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6tfMVtYs4w

 

Ha ha ha!

...

Edited April 1, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Apech]

...

There is nothing irrational about mysticism.

 

To say so is to display prejudice.

 

I am become the resolution of every paradox.

 

A parrot box, a parrot box, a most ingenious parrot box!

 

Baffling?

 

Mysterious?

 

Of course!

...

Ha ha ha!

...

 

 

Thank you for clarifying that point.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

The pleasure is all mine.

...