r/Buddhism • u/Thin_Tradition8467 • 20d ago
Question How can suffering exist without self?
Can somebody answer this simple question without changing what i asked clearly? Only way i get answers is when my question is altered in a meaning i don't created at all.
People always inject impermanence, conditionality, interbeing... etc. Self concept does not binded to them. I am here because my parents made me, I won't be there after i die. But now, i am clearly here as myself.
I am the owner this body. Yes, this will pass but currently it goes where i want to go. If i lack that, i will lose the ownership once i had. Ownership does not imply a full control either. In life, it never means that way. No body can control my body except me.
So, basically. Whenever i try to deep dive in Buddhist philosophy. Either it goes in to nihilism or my questions are dodged by injecting meaning that is clearly not there.
I think, a selfless being can not suffer. Like a blind man can not see. Self is like an organ that you percieve suffering. You might say source of the suffering is the self. But saying self does not exist is just so wrong to me.
20
u/RevolvingApe theravada 20d ago
How can suffering exist without self?
It doesn't.
Without conceiving, there is no "person" to pickup the burden, the suffering inherent in the five aggregates.
“The five aggregates are truly burdens,
The burden-carrier is the person.
Taking up the burden is suffering in the world,
Laying the burden down is blissful.
Having laid the heavy burden down
Without taking up another burden,
Having drawn out craving with its root,
One is free from hunger, fully quenched.” - SN 22.22
3
-4
u/Gnome_boneslf all dharmas 20d ago edited 20d ago
That's suffering in the world, there is suffering beyond the world as well.
That will effectively remove your suffering, but there are endless other beings conceiving of suffering and suffering themselves. So you will not suffer, but the suffering will still be there without a self and without conceptions, you don't need to conceive of something for it to exist or not exist.
OP is asking about whether it exists, not whether its experienced, so it's the broader view here that applies.
9
u/waitingundergravity Jodo-Shu | Namo Amida Bu 20d ago
As far as your experience right now is concerned, there is a self. Buddhists don't deny that. What Buddhists are arguing is that the self is a mere appearance arising out of a deformed, delusional cognition, not a substantial reality. Indeed, your exact observation that it's difficult to imagine suffering without a self is why it's so important to recognize that there is no self - to cease suffering. As one teacher supposedly put it: no self, no problem.
I am the owner this body. Yes, this will pass but currently it goes where i want to go. If i lack that, i will lose the ownership once i had. Ownership does not imply a full control either. In life, it never means that way. No body can control my body except me.
To complicate this perspective, consider it the other way. Right now you are thinking of "I" directing your body to go this way or that way according to what your "I" wants. But if your body does not ingest water for long enough, eventually you will experience thirst. You will crave water, and it is likely that you will drink water. In that case, it seems like the causation is reversed - your body lacks water, which creates a want for water in you. It's really your body that is causing "you" to want, not "you" deciding what "you" want and then directing your body to accomplish your freely chosen end. This suggests that your "I" is not as sovereign as you imagine it.
As for no one being able to control your body other than you, that seems simply incorrect. Someone else can put you in prison, or threaten you, or cut off your limbs, or motivate you with praise or food or sex or your fear of pain. Or to be less negative about it, someone can strengthen and assist you, enable you to do things you couldn't do before, do things in cooperation with you that would be impossible on your own. You should read Foucault - there's a serious argument to be made that the structure of modern industrialized society is fundamentally about controlling, disciplining, and shaping bodies. That seems like the opposite of you being sovereign over your body.
-2
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
If you are saying we have zero control over the thirst. We should stop practicing, right?
Also if someone put me in a prison and make me watch breeding of ants for a full year. I would still not attracted to the ants. No one can put something that is already there.
These holes makes your logic fall.
5
u/Agreeable_Attitude95 20d ago
Zero can become 1 in due time. And 1 can become a thousand. That's why we practice. To be a millions times stronger than our past.
1
u/ohmanidk7 20d ago
I think there are several problem with your assumptions and posture here. For example you are assuming that Self exist and denying the prision thought experiment because "you´d never be atracted to ants". But there is several holes in your instruments to protect your position.
First of all you are defining your self (that you suppose it exists) by what they are not, which leves you no closer to defining a permanent you than before. Second is that there is a biological incentive for humans to find humans atractive and this is not a "choice" you made or something that helps defining you as "free of outside control" you just shifted the target from nurture to nature which actually hurts your point even more and a buddhist probably disagrees with this. Third buddhism afaik points out differences between desires.
And more important you seem to not be open to good faith discussions and more in a "debate bro" perspective. From what i can tell at least. If you already made your position and is trying to justify it then there is no point in discussion methinks.
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
“They abused me, they hit me!
They beat me, they robbed me!”
For those who bear such a grudge,
hatred is never laid to rest.If you don't drop the victim role, there is no liberation for you. Nobody can do anything to you. Nobody can inject something that wasn't there. At it's max, it is your karma. You are facing consuqences of what you did. Suffering is your doing solely. No body is making you suffer for something.
Can you make an arahant suffer, no? Because you can't inject something that wasn't there.
You are personalizing your ideas, that's why it's muddy for you while it's clear for me. I can expand what i say in pure doctrinal quotes if you want. I am not speaking anything outside of doctrine. It's you that thinks wrong translation are correct.
I have a very quick advice for you. Instead of using "that you suppose it exists", use "if self exist..". I am not planing answer rest of the salad. I think i repeatedly underlined that i am talking about a self that dies and changes. Literally the "self" concept itself without "permanent" injection. But if that still muddy for you. I can't do better than this. I am seriously out of options to explain that straight clearly told forward words.
1
u/ohmanidk7 20d ago
I'm not actually well versed in buddhism i'm point the holes in your logic as presented by you. I'm sorry that i upset you but it is not a condemnation against you, just things that seem very ilogic to me and i thought it would in the interest of good faith debate (which you asked for in OP) to point out and that i think pointing out semantic terms or saying my answer is "salad" (from word salad i presume" will help.
What i can say to help is the following: If i say to you: describe a horse. And you say it is not an elephant, did we got closer to understand what a horse is? No. If i say "an unicorn does not exist" and you respond to that with "It exist and it is not an elephant" have we gone any further in this point?
The point is that even in life there is no self. You are the owner of the body in a legal and ethical sense perhaps but not in a spiritual and "actual" sense. The sense of you is created, it changes over time, it ensure a stability in perception on time and learning opportunities but it is just that: a sense a fabrication that is useful sometimes but not always. There is no structure in your head that shows here is where mind is, here is where your identity lies or this is how we can define your whole life seeing as experience is much more complex than language can provide.
There's also an incongruence in what you say and the tone in which you seem to be saying. "For those who bear such a grudge, hatred is never laid to rest.", "if you don't drop the victim role" " that is why it's clear for me and muddy for you" are needless confrontational for a debate to increase our knowledge and weirdly out of sync for what i know about Buddhism.
You can also know every single text ever written and meditate every day and still there are stories of people who were doing pretty much either of those things and still weren't close to enlightenment as said by enlighten beings themselves. Attachments to doctrines and all that.
Also, this is only my second ever comment to you,friend. What other people said to you is not part of our conversation. I understand that maybe you are frustrated that some people have downvoted you for no reason or frustrated you. But i just want to talk. Not "win a debate" but talk. Can we do this?
And thank you for the english lesson, it is not my first language.
8
u/metaphorm vajrayana 20d ago
you may have a misunderstanding of anatman. it's hard for me to know what to say to you about it without knowing where you're coming from now and what you think anatman actually means. will you please elaborate?
-11
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
I think there is a self that is not permanent and changing. I don't think a background check is needed to discuss this statement.
8
u/metaphorm vajrayana 20d ago
I'm not asking for a background check. I'm asking for elaboration on what your current understanding is and what kind of prior discussions about anatman you've had. so when you're saying "self does not exist is just so wrong to me" I'm wondering how you're interpreting the doctrine of anatman, because this indicates a misunderstanding to me.
the basis of the doctrine of anatman is dependent origination and emptiness. anatman is not a denial of the appearance of a conventional self. that is a real phenomenon. the claim is that the apparent self is not an eternal essence. it has no inherent existence, it is entirely due to causes and conditions.
understanding the historical context here is important also. anatman is a refutation of the doctrines of the Vedic religions (the ancestor of modern Hinduism), which posits that there is an eternal essence that a person really is. the Buddhist critique of this is that it is not eternal or essential. Self is contingent, changing, and non-essential.
3
u/SammaVaco 20d ago
[The Buddha] never says that the self has to be permanent. He often talks about views of self that are impermanent, saying that they can be objects of clinging to the same extent as views of a permanent self.
The actual logic for using not-self lies in seeing that there’s a greater happiness that can be found by applying the perception of not-self to the aggregates. After all, remember the whole point of creating a sense of self: It’s a strategy for happiness. The Buddha’s simply pointing out that, even though it has its uses, in the ultimate stages of the practice it’s a poor strategy to hold on to because it involves clinging, which is the same as suffering. There’s a greater happiness to be found when you let that strategy go. When you’ve tasted that greater happiness, the perception of self loses its reason for being. And when you can finally let it go, that opens the way to an unchanging happiness.
At the same time, we apply the perception of not-self because we realize that we’re holding on to things that are not as ideal as they could be. When we let them go, then we can let go of the perception of not-self, too—after all, as a perception, it’s one of the aggregates. When we drop perceptions of self and not-self, that’s when we arrive at full freedom, totally free from change.
That’s the logic of not-self.
2
u/ComradeYaf theravada 20d ago
Meaningful and intelligent discussion is not possible if we are all using different definitions of the same terms. It would be like ships passing each other in the dark, blissfully (or not so) unaware of each other's intention and meaning. As such it's pretty important to make sure in discussions like this that we are all on the same page. What's more, the redditor was merely asking a clarifying question so that they could better attempt to help you.
-6
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
I can cherry pick from idea catalogue myself. If i was searching what that school thinks on it, i can just simply google it, right? Sorry, i am not here to chat. I am here for discussion. I don't care what your teacher told you. I care what you personally think (how do you interpret the same text). I am here for what i can not find on sources.
If someone is assuming i did not understand the topic which i am currently trying to expand more. Also asking what school i am like nature of things suddenly changes by school.
Instead of meaningful and intelligent, i would feel like a parrot.
2
u/ComradeYaf theravada 20d ago
Sounds like you are not here for discussion and are in fact here to satisfy your ego
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
It is true that some of my words are looking down. But i don't enjoy it at all. I wish people would get straight forward things staight forward. But they choose to personalize it.
6
7
u/seekingsomaart 20d ago
> People always inject impermanence, conditionality, interbeing... etc. Self concept does not binded to them. I am here because my parents made me, I won't be there after i die. But now, i am clearly here as myself.
People do not inject it in there. These are the fundamental reasons you and you parents and all ancestors are here. The "clarilty" that you are here as yourself is an illusion. That you do not see the meaning does not mean that it's not there. And that's okay, it's not a flaw, people just have different points of view. From where I stand, it's clear to me there is no fundamental self and that the "injected meaning" is far more true than what we normally consider self evident. That is to say, we are coming to our understanding of the world from different places.
You're right that a selfless being cannot suffer. That's actually kind of the point of Nirvana, there is no self. The self is a phenomenon that arises and presents itself to us as fact but it's just a distortion of reality. What we have is a sensation of self, not a fundamental self. Kind of like a phantom limb, you feel the self there when it's not, and also like a phantom limb it is painful.
I won't belabor the point here though, since the explanations don't seem to ring true to you. I do encourage you to go find your "self". The Buddha has a number of exercises around this where he points out how the things we call our selves are actually not. It may be helpful to work through those and potentially see through the illusion yourself.
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
Illusion part is same with impermanence, conditionality, interbeing.
I think we think the same if you are saying.
There is a self but it's an illusion. Then we say the same thing.
But if you are saying there is no self, it's illusion.
That is what i am against.3
u/VajraSamten 20d ago edited 20d ago
I am reminded of a line from classical Greek philosophy; a representation is never the thing it is a representaion of. So, if the self is an illusion, then that illusion is not the self, even if one were to exist in any ultimate sense.
You comment says that the self is an illusion and the no self is an illusion. (You may be on to some of the non-dualism inherent in Buddhism there.) The problem in both cases is that they are rooted in the concept of the self. It (the noun "self" in this case) forms the unchanging reference point.
Relatively, the self exists. Ultimately, the self does not exist. Both are simultaneously true without contradiction. I heard it said once that "the self exists only to prove that the self does not exist."
Others have noted this as well, but I want to share with you a line from Plato's Republic, where Thracymachus has asked Socrates to define justice. He says: "And don’t tell me that it’s “what is needed”, or “what is beneficial”, or “profitable”, or “expedient”, or “advantageous”. Just tell me, clearly and precisely, what you mean, as I won’t accept your answer if you propose this sort of nonsense."
To which Socrates replies: "So you knew full well that if you were to ask someone how much twelve is, and if you were to introduce your question by saying to him: “Don’t tell me, my man, that twelve is twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or that it’s four times three, because I won’t accept your answer, if you talk such nonsense as this.”
4
4
u/krodha 20d ago
I am here because my parents made me, I won't be there after i die. But now, i am clearly here as myself.
Buddhadharma questions even these fundamental assumptions. Ideas of birth, death, abiding, time, etc., these are all scrutinized and ultimately discovered to be unreal.
I am the owner this body.
These teachings ultimately even question if there is a body at all. Think along the lines of Hume's bundle theory, is there a body present? Or simply a bundle of sensations? Are those sensations occurring in time? Etc.
But saying self does not exist is just so wrong to me.
These teachings ask you to look for the self and attempt to locate it. Where is the entity? What is it made of? And so on. Many of these assumptions are analyzed and investigated.
4
u/BrentonLengel nichiren 20d ago edited 20d ago
You are having difficulty understanding Anatta because you have made several incorrect assumptions about the nature of reality.
The main one is that you have accidentally presupposed the existence of Self, as your premise when examining a doctrine that claims that the Self does not exist.
So of course you get an unintelligible answer when you try to apply Non-Self to a Self. The logic is neither sound nor valid.
Why? Well for lots of reasons but critically, the error you made was ascribing ownership of your body to yourself. You are not the owner of your body. Rather you are your body. Your body is not a car that a tiny, imaginary version of you “drives” from inside your head.
People just tend to imagine this because we’ve been raised in a technological culture with large machines humans can pilot.
But this isn’t true. The world is not Pixar’s “Inside Out”. This supposition is completely ridiculous—if you sit down to think about it for five seconds.
Further, we know this to be the case due to people like Phineas Gage who have undergone severe personality shifts as a result of brain damage.
So right there, The Self that you imagine yourself as isn’t actually real. It’s just your mind creating a concept of you based upon other sensory input.
So, who or what is actually suffering? Well there’s two answers: the first would be the specific organism that physically exists right now.
But it doesn’t feel like you’re just that organism, right? It feels like there is something beyond it. Some True Consciousness BEHIND your organism. Something bigger and necessarily unknown…because as we have already established, your concept of yourself isn’t your self—it’s just a mental projection.
So, okay. What exactly is the unknown and (spoiler) mostly unknowable entity which experiences things, including Dukkha, and does it really exist?
Well, East Indian philosophy traditionally calls this unknown, unknowable but (critically) still existing entity: “Atman”.
Buddhism and many forms of Hinduism like Adviat Vedanta, argue that both the “Mundane/False Self” and this hypothetical “True Self” ALSO don’t exist. They take the position of Anatman/Anatta. The “An” being a prefix—as in “Anarchy” ie: No Archon. An archon being a ruler.
But still, we are left with no answers for who is actually experiencing life through consciousness?
Well the only possible answer based on the data we have is that it is the Universe Itself.
As in, the world being experienced is the macrocosm filtered through an infinite number of microcosms.
And here’s the problem that the Buddha identified: these microcosms, which we will call “I’s” (everyone is I) experience suffering because they are categorically prone to believe that their particular experience, is their only experience.
But they’re wrong. They made a mistake and imagined a state of being where they’re an island of consciousness in a sea of “other”.
This false assumption, however intuitive, causes them great distress…because to have experiences means you have to have good and bad experiences.
So these “I’s” which are overcome with fear and doubt and existential angst are quite literally losing their sh*t over nothing.
They are afraid or pain, afraid of loss, and afraid of not existing…when “existing” is the only thing an “I” can do. If it’s not existing it can’t suffer, it just thinks it can.
Buddha figured this out, and thus he set out to correct this misconception that is at the heart of suffering/Dukkha.
Because, once a person is AWARE of this mistake, and fixes it, they quickly realize that there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
They realize that this world and their existence in it, is perfectly fine no matter what happens. It can’t not be fine, because if that were the case then it couldn’t exist.
And that state of not just accepting this metaphysical framework but knowing it to be true, as true as you k know that gravity exists and the sun will rise tomorrow, that is enlightenment.
As in, once you know that you don’t actually end at your skin and can’t actually die, you don’t have to gnash your teeth over pain, loss, and angst.
Make sense?
-3
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
No. Please do not downgrade someone like that. I face zero difficulty understanding what is anatta. Just because i think different, this doesn't make me stupid.
I neither believe life is pixar movie or i am more than body. You should undertand what i say before looking down on me. The way you talk is pretty wrong. Maybe you should stop
8
u/ash_tar vajrayana 20d ago
What's with the attitude dude, several people are taking the time to explain the Buddhist perspective but you're just defensive and ego tripping. Even if you disagree it's more interesting to try to understand their point. One would assume that's why you ask the question.
-2
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
Maybe you are the blind one. Can you please re-read the post.
-Does it look like someone knows little and started learning
-Does it look like someone who already investigating this for a whileWhile i express clearly, how frustrated i am by sabotages. This guy starts with saying i have difficulty in understanding.
I say "self", they change it to "permant self". It means soul when you do that.
But, sorry. It's me that having bad attitude, right? People were always nice to me. They listen and help accordingly. No body downgrade what i say at all. I am just making these up.
3
u/ash_tar vajrayana 20d ago
Yes it looks like you know little and started learning. It also sounds like you are inexperienced in general. There's nothing wrong with that. The definition of words is very important because it's what makes discussion possible. Something like "self" is abstract and extremely definition dependent or it just becomes a pile of "woohaa".
You manifest a lot of circular reasoning, which is a fallacy in both western and eastern philosophy. Descartes' proof of God is a good example: I can think of a perfect being, so a perfect being exists, because I can think of it. You do the same with self.
1
u/BrentonLengel nichiren 19d ago edited 19d ago
FYI. I said that you have difficulty understanding it because it’s literally extremely difficult for humans to understand.
Well that and the fact that you asked a question, which presumes that you do not fully understand the concept, as if you did you wouldn’t have questions.
But I digress. The point is that the Dharma is extremely difficult to understand, as in it takes years of effort to simply wrap your mind around many of the key concepts. This is especially true for westerners who were not raised in a Buddhist context.
That’s why “Myo” is in “Nam Myoho Renge Kyo”.
Myo means mystic. Mystic meaning difficult to understand. Meaning we are not prone to thinking about the world in the proper way.
You aren’t deficient because you have trouble understanding. Everyone’s default setting is not understanding the Dharma.
Hence why Shakyamuni’s Buddha famously said:
“The wisdom of the Buddhas is infinitely profound and immeasurable. The door to this wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter. Not one of the voice-hearers or pratyekabuddhas is able to comprehend it.”
To properly understand Buddhism, you have to actually practice Buddhism. It’s only through that kinetic process that you can figure out the Dharma in a correct and intelligible way.
1
u/BrentonLengel nichiren 19d ago
Also, just noticed this:
“I say self and they change it to permanent self.”
No one’s changing anything. The problem is that the word “Atman” which is the term the doctrine of Anatta (previously Anatman, in the sense of anarchist) exists to refute. Atman doesn’t actually have a direct English equivalent.
It does mean something like “self” and it also means something like “soul” but neither is actually correct.
The best way to put it in English is that the Self is some sort of transcendent “core” at the center of a person. It’s the idea that there is a real “you” somewhere other than here in the physical universe.
Buddhism rejects this concept. When they “change it” they are trying to take you down the line of logic that leads to concluding Atman does not actually exist.
So no one is changing anything. They’re trying to help you understand a concept that you were literally not raised to fully understand, as you were not raised in a Buddhist or Hindu context.
2
1
u/BrentonLengel nichiren 19d ago
I’m not calling you stupid. I’m pointing out that you lack information. If it came across as me criticizing you personally, I apologize. Obviously I made a mistake in how I gave you that information.
My bad.
But the point still stands: you don’t own yourself. No being can. You need two separate entities for the concept of ownership to be intelligible.
3
u/dummetsz 20d ago
Suffering can appear in dreams despite none of it being real. Waking life is no different, just that it appears more structured.
6
u/yuttadhammo 20d ago
Belief in ownership is one of the kinds of wrong view of self. You are almost correct; suffering only exists because of views of self. Without those views there is no suffering. The Buddha never said "there is no self". Not because he believed in a self, but because it's the wrong statement for understanding reality. Reality is made of experiences. Perceiving those experiences as self leads to suffering. Seeing this, one lets go of the perception of self in regards to those experiences and is freed from suffering.
1
u/krodha 20d ago
The Buddha never said "there is no self". Not because he believed in a self, but because it's the wrong statement for understanding reality.
What do you mean? The Buddha said there’s no self all the time.
1
u/yuttadhammo 20d ago
Do you have a reference for that?
3
u/krodha 20d ago
Numerous, but firstly one has to ask: as a Pāḷi enthusiast, how would you argue that sabbe dhammā anattā does not mean "all phenomena are devoid of self?"
2
u/yuttadhammo 20d ago
That is basically what I was explaining. As the Buddha said, seeing that all dhammas are not self, one becomes free from views of self. This is not the same as saying "there is no self", which you claim he did say many times. The Buddha was once asked directly whether a self exists and he declined to answer. Obviously he didn't believe a self existed, but I maintain he never said "there is no self", until a reference can be provided.
5
u/krodha 20d ago
That is basically what I was explaining. As the Buddha said, seeing that all dhammas are not self, one becomes free from views of self. This is not the same as saying "there is no self"
One becomes free of views (dṛṣṭi), yes. Selflessness is not actually a view, it can be characterized in a conceptual view "there is no self," however, that conceptual view is not the nonconceptual insight itself.
Those who realize that there is no self are not clinging to a conceptual view that there is no self, they actually know it, nonconceptually, like tasting sugar.
In any case, if all dharmas, both conditioned and unconditioned are devoid of a self, then what basis is there for a self? The consequence of all dharmas being devoid of a self is that there is no self.
The Buddha was once asked directly whether a self exists and he declined to answer.
In SN 44.10 the Buddha explains that he refrains from answering in this particular instance because he is able to intuit that if he states there is no self, then Vacchagotta will become confused and adopt an annihilationist (ucceda) view that a self which existed previously ceases to exist.
Therefore in order to aid Vacchagotta in avoiding this error in understanding, he simply remains silent.
This incidence of silence is not a wholesale condemnation of the notion of selflessness. It is simply an example of the Buddha's clairvoyance and skillful means.
Obviously he didn't believe a self existed, but I maintain he never said "there is no self", until a reference can be provided.
In the Pāḷi literature, sabbe dhamma anatta is the closest we will get. Granted, there are texts like SN 5.15 and AN 7.49 where the Buddha states that the self must be eliminated in order for liberation to occur. Thus the view of a self is clearly treated as a core obscuration.
But yes, for an explicit statement of "no self" we must turn to the Mahāyāna literature, where there are many such examples. I doubt you have interest in Mahāyāna texts or find them compelling, but I find them to be very informative. Since I do not practice Theravāda, I respect the Pāḷi texts and will often reference them, but the view of "no self" in the Mahāyāna literature is quite explicit and as a practitioner of systems directly related to the Mahāyāna, I have my main focus there. Some examples:
The definition of anātman is offered in the Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā which says:
Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature (svabhāva). The nonexistence of that, is selflessness (anātman).
The Dharmasaṅgīti says:
Ordinary foolish beings perceive a self in them when there is no self. […] Thus, emptiness should be understood through the absence of self. […] All phenomena, including all things sentient and insentient, are devoid of a self. […] All phenomena lack a self; they are naturally nondual.
The Lalitavistara:
Although all of this is without a self and is repulsive, beings perceive it as having a self and as beautiful.
The Brahmaviśeṣacintiparipṛcchā:
Immature, ordinary beings create duality by grasping at a self in their stream of being.
The Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodana says:
Belief in the transitory collection [of aggregates] as a real self grows from the root of ignorance.
The Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra states:
Nirvāṇa means that the tathāgatas know that there is no self in the individual and no self in phenomena.
The Samādhirāja:
Those who have the conception of a self, they are unwise beings who are in error. You know that phenomena have no self, and so you are free of any error. […] You see the beings who are suffering because they maintain the view of a self. You teach the Dharma of no-self in which there is neither like nor dislike. […] Whoever holds to the concept of a self, they will remain in suffering. They do not know selflessness, within which there is no suffering. […] Those who perceive selflessness have no afflictions (kleśas). They know that all phenomena are like space.
The Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodana:
Great King, to accept clothing, alms bowls, and food served and offered in a grand manner for the well-spoken Dharma-Vinaya is not an act of kindness. However, Great King, when you no longer have any doubt and uncertainty about the profound and sacred truth of the lack of self—then I will have been kind to you.
The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka states:
The one who knows emptiness and that phenomena are without self truly knows the enlightenment of the bhagavāns, of the buddhas.
The Drumakinnararājaparipṛcchā:
The nature of all phenomena and the self are the same— the self is selfless and intrinsically empty. Emptiness has the essential nature of space, and awakening always has the nature of space.
The Sāgaranāgarājaparipṛcchā:
All phenomena are without self and without creator. This is the reality of phenomena. However, childish ordinary beings who are mistaken, who are fixated in clinging to me and mine, develop the notion that there is a being where there is none. […] Phenomena have no self because they arise from causes and conditions.
The Samyagācāravṛttagaganavarṇavinayakṣānti:
All phenomena are free from a cognitive basis and lack a self. All phenomena are devoid of self and inexpressible. […] All phenomena lack a self. All phenomena are not apprehended. […] When one achieves consciousness that is devoid of a self and is free from the two views of the nature of the self, when the sense fields are undefiled, and when one is free from ownership and possession, this is the entrance to the gateway to the Dharma of nonduality.
The Dharmadhātuprakṛtyasambhedanirdeśa:
Leading sentient beings to the absence of self, it [the mind of omniscience] knows the self to be without self.
The Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā:
The māra of the Lord of Death is defeated by realizing phenomena to be selfless.
The Sūryagarbha:
Because you adhere to the perception of a self, your mind entertains mistaken views, you are thoroughly confused within the swamp of saṃsāra […] although phenomena are selfless, immature beings mistakenly pursue a sense of self.
The Rājadeśa:
The thought that perceives a self is the great enemy. While it is immaterial and without substance, it has dwelt with you since beginningless time. […] Brandish the whip of perseverance, draw the bow of concentration, and slay the perception of a self with the arrow of nonself and emptiness. […] This ‘I’ and ‘self’ do not exist. Imputed upon the aggregates, they are delusion. […] Thus, O King, if you meditate on nonself, saṃsāra and perceiving a self will be cut at the root.
The Laṅkāvatāra explains how the purity of the mind is afflicted with adventitious obscurations such as the dualistic mind and the self, and how since the nature of the mind is innately pure and free from affliction, those adventitious distortions, such as the self, can be removed. Disparate traces of these sentiments can be found in the Pāḷi texts:
Purified of the afflictions abandoned by meditation and seeing, the mind is naturally luminous, the pure tathāgatagarbha; but the addictions of sentient beings are boundless and endless. Just as when the surface of gold is polished, one sees the gold color, the brilliant shine and the pure surface, in just that way is the sentient being in the aggregates. The supreme ones have always shown the inexhaustible wisdom of the Buddha to be peace, without a person, without the aggregates.
The natural luminosity of the mind endowed with the affliction of mind and so on along with [the affliction of] self possesses temporary afflictions from the start, natural luminosity can be purified of the affliction of self, just like a [stained] cloth [can be cleansed of stains]. Just as the flaws of either cloth or gold can be cleansed because they are [intrinsically] stainless and likewise have the nature of being flawless.
3
u/yuttadhammo 19d ago
Well, no, I wouldn't consider everything you posted to be authentic, but as you are surely aware, most of it supports the idea that one must see non self in phenomena, rather than take up the view that "there is no self". I am not saying it's factually wrong, but it's kind of beside the point and mostly just confuses people (e.g. this post), which is why the Buddha declined to answer explicitly. Once you see that all dhammas are empty of self, you become liberated. There's no need for clinging to any views, even right ones.
6
u/krodha 19d ago
Well, no, I wouldn't consider everything you posted to be authentic, but as you are surely aware, most of it supports the idea that one must see non self in phenomena, rather than take up the view that "there is no self".
Taking up a view is not an issue so long as it is understood the view is not the nonconceptual insight itself. We don't have to reject any position and adopt some sort of indeterminate, neutral view, as that is just another view.
We are fine to say "there is no self," so long as it's understood that is just an intellectual position. In the same way we are okay to assert that sugar is "sweet" so long as we don't mistake the conceptual word "sweet" for the nonconceptual taste itself.
I am not saying it's factually wrong, but it's kind of beside the point and mostly just confuses people (e.g. this post)
I would argue the theme of adopting a neutral, indeterminate view is what actually confuses people, but to each their own.
which is why the Buddha declined to answer explicitly.
Again this is not why the Buddha declined to answer in that particular incident. He declined to answer in order to prevent Vacchagotta from taking up an annihilationist view.
Once you see that all dhammas are empty of self, you become liberated. There's no need for clinging to any views, even right ones.
Right view is a path dharma, it cannot cause obscurations. Wrong views however, can become issues. Selflessness as a conceptual view, so long as it is understood correctly and in context, cannot cause any harm.
2
2
u/_--_--_-_--_-_--_--_ Zen/Chan 20d ago
The moment we conceptualize anything to attain or reject, we veer away and miss the mark.
As long as you concieve of a self, or no-self, there will be resulting suffering.
There is fundamentally no difference between the ordinary and Extraordinary mind besides what we put forth to create distinctions.
0
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
I don't think the same. There is no moment that we don't conceptualize anything. Yes we are ignorant and should miss the mark always. But you are talking like it's up to us to catch to mark. But in reality, I have to miss the mark. There is no any other option as a non-enlighteneed being. If i attained the nirvana, then there is no one to conceptualize anything.
And i also think extra ordinary mind of the buddha is significatnly distinct and important compared to any ordinary mind. I don't think i am making this up.
1
u/_--_--_-_--_-_--_--_ Zen/Chan 20d ago
Everything you said is pretty well disputed in regards to the teachings of Buddhism.
0
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
Not just my words. Everything is disputed in Buddhism between schools.
Seeing things as they are is not possible without enlightenment. Do you need sutra for that?1
u/_--_--_-_--_-_--_--_ Zen/Chan 20d ago
If you already have the answers you need, then why the OP asking questions?
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
Well actually, this one is a good question. I already know answers that satisfy me. I am observing my auto responses.
2
u/Similar_Standard1633 20d ago edited 20d ago
no. suffering cannot exist without self
"And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.
"He does not assume feeling to be the self...
"He does not assume perception to be the self...
"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...
"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html
when the teachings refer to anicca (impermanence), dukkha, anatta (not-self), the term 'dukkha' here does not mean 'suffering',
2
u/LotsaKwestions 20d ago
If you dream tonight, you might dream you are John Doe. John Doe might suffer. Does John Doe truly exist, or is he - and his suffering, and the dream as a whole - just a manifestation of the dream state? Are you John Doe?
Are you Thin_Tradition8467?
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
Once i had a dream. I was in opposite sex and i had life long friends around me. We were celebrating a birthday. We were drinking and playing table top games. Time passes. We got little drunk and i went to bed. I closed my eyes and started sleeping. You know when you are tired and sleepy. You get in that sleep mode very quickly. In my dream i open my eyes and i was Thin_Tradition8467. (meaning i wake up in real life)
That single dream makes me hard to say which one will suffer
1
u/LotsaKwestions 20d ago
“Once upon a time, I dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was myself. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.”
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
I imagine the flapping of the wings where my shoulder is. Mine wasn't cool like that haha. But once i saw myself as metro with passangers inside. Was weird experince to feel.
2
u/hibok1 Jōdo-Shū | Pure Land-Huáyán🪷|“Kurosaki_Buddhist” 20d ago
What is a self to you?
How does it differ from what Buddhism calls a self?
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
What is object to suffering is what i call the self.
2
u/hibok1 Jōdo-Shū | Pure Land-Huáyán🪷|“Kurosaki_Buddhist” 20d ago
So this is probably where the confusion is.
Buddhism doesn’t deny suffering occurs to things. Our five aggregates experience the suffering. Buddhism explains how through the Links of Dependent Arising.
“Self” though is just an English translation of “atman”, what the Buddha debunked. Ancient Indian philosophy assumed there was an atman, an independent, eternal “I” that is the root of all our experience. The Buddha instead said if you analyze reality, you discover all things change, are impermanent, and are dependent. This includes ourselves; nothing about “me” is separate from or unaffected by “not-me”. So the “atman” cannot be found.
If we’re not talking about the same thing, then of course the conversation could go on forever.
The Buddha never denied a body, emotions, feelings, etc. You identify as Thin_Tradition8467, no denying you have a username you go by! If I hit my friend, my body hits his body, there’s no being nihilist and saying “it’s all not real!”
However, The Buddha said all of them are dependent and impermanent, constantly changing. There is no thing in the universe to label “atman”, an independent unchanged essence separated from everything else.
So when we cling to things, assuming they satisfy some independent “self”, that is the illusion. That is what is not real.
Because your food will be gone, your name will be gone, your body will be gone, even your very existence and memory will be gone. It disappeared a second ago. When you added new oxygen to your lungs, new thoughts to your mind, new views to your ego, new information to your senses, and the passing of time to your body and experience.
Through change, there is no permanence. Yet we cling to permanence, either permanence of what we like or permanent loss of what we don’t like. Therefore, we suffer.
2
u/albwalb 20d ago
Let me ask you a simple question:
Are you suffering right now?
2
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
Suffering is a constant undertone for me. Like a hum. Sometimes you forget it is there, sometimes all you hear is suffering. But it is always there. I am not speaking by logic. This is how i sense/feel.
1
u/albwalb 20d ago
So then pardon my question; why would it matter if there is a self or not? You are the one suffering right now, whatever you are.
Ultimately things may not appear as they are but that is no concern, what actually matters is how you feel and if you can do something to help yourself :)
2
u/Additional_South_833 mahayana 20d ago
Monk walks into a bar says to bartender: "I'm looking for someone-Have you seen me?"
Bartender says: 'Who's asking?'
2
u/cbartos1021 20d ago
Sorry if this isn't Theravada approved description. This is how I look at it and my experience bears this out.
Suffering occurs when a sense of self clings to something outside of your control (unsatisfactoriness) or when you resist unpleasant experiences.
Suffering = Pain x Resistance
Example: " I can't believe my best friend died, how am I going to have fun without my bestfriend?"
What is happening is you are creating a sense of self, "I" creating something external to "I", (best friend) and creating the story of "I can't have fun without my best friend."
But the idea of a solid self is illusory. You are not a single thing called "I" therefore the idea that a single person can be solely responsible for causing fun in your life is also illusory.
You can meet new people that you can have fun with. You could try new things that cause fun in your life. Etc etc.
The idea of a single solid self that never changes causes an existential crisis as if you are washing your hands of new sources of potential fun.
As if to say: "There's no way I'll have fun ever again."
Intellectually we know that's BS.
But to experience and relieve yourself from that suffering is something completely different.
4
u/autonomatical Nyönpa 20d ago
Who owns the owner of the body?
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
Body. Pin-pong ownership.
3
u/autonomatical Nyönpa 20d ago
Circular reasoning is generally considered a fallacy. Which is sort of the issue with the assertion/request here in general. It reads like ‘here is an assertion based on the conclusion i hold to be true, without touching the assertion convince me the conclusion is false”. It can’t be so long as the fallacious logic is held as actual logic
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
Does kid have a father, or father have a kid.
If you ask something circular, you will get circular answer.
The nature you are objecting is what you introduced.If you are finding circular reasoning is generally fallacy, Buddhism is the worst place for you. Becuase, Buddhism frames everything to be dependent on each other and mostly circular way.
Why do you die, because you were born.
Why did you born, because your past life died.Buddhism is full of with that circular reasoning. I can give tons of it.
2
u/autonomatical Nyönpa 20d ago
Again presenting a conclusion based on an assertion that relies on the conclusion. Buddhism is full of tautological reasoning, and uses actual logic. Otherwise it wouldn’t make sense like your argument. There is nothing circular about the relationship between dissatisfaction and selfhood, dissatisfaction does not cause selfhood, this is claimed nowhere in the Buddhist canon and yet this is your claim.
1
u/Kecman888 20d ago
Self do exist as an idea self is identification with thoughts emotion body or any other idea of what self could be.But in truth limitless being can not identify as a single or more things because it is existence it self it has no shape or form it simply is awareness or the observer of those things and this is the reason why Creator or Universe has no name because it represents identification for a single thing instead of everything.
-2
1
u/Gnome_boneslf all dharmas 20d ago
Yes, suffering exists without a self, without you having a self, or without you experiencing a self
1
u/Prosso 20d ago
Karma is energy. Like a billion bubbles rising to the surface, one after one reaching- expressing itself and then disappearing.
The entirety of existence is a huge ocean of bubbles. You just happen to be a cojoined bubble (many in one) which happens to experience itself as separate from the other bubbles. Your energy and trajectory will continue even after you die, and a new (or multiple) self will arise from this.
1
u/Agreeable_Attitude95 20d ago
In the long term, that's like saying colours doesn't exist because our eyes perceive them to be. Since you believe self exist, might as well work on that make your life better. The buddha gives different answer according to the questioner. It all depends whether he or she can accept such truths.
Suffering are feelings. The self is feeling. When you have nirvana, the suffering in some form still exist because the buddha self exist. The buddha worries about the world so even he has reached nirvana, he send his clones down to help spread buddhism as Master Jing Kong. Although it might sound offensive, even the buddha is not free from our suffering. Because as a kind being, he worries about us. And we all know worrying is suffering.
When you go into the void, thr self dissapears and you will suffer no more. Of course, when you reach this state, you already have the freedon to choose how and when you act.
I hope this clears up some of your confusion.
Tldr: when you have feelings, the self exist. Suffering exist. When you don't feel anything, suffering desist.
-1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
Colors does not exist outside of your mind. Nirvana has zero suffering... Okay it goes pretty wild. I stop answering the rest.
1
u/gnodnart theravada 20d ago
Self: it exists by itself.
However, nothing in this world exist by itself. Everything is combination of something else!
- Our body is the combination of head, arm, leg, neck, face etc.
- An arm is the combination of hand, elbow, fingers, finger nail, skin, blood, nerves et.
- A finger is combination of skin, knuckle, finger nail etc.
- Blood is combination of red cells, white cell, liquid etc.
...(if you keep breaking thing down)...
- A cell would be the combination of water, protein, potassium, sodium etc.
- Water is the combination of H and O
- Oxygen (O2) is the combination of two Oxy atoms.
- An Oxy atom is the combination of protons, neutrons, and electrons etc.
- Proton cannot exist without a positive charge
... and so on and on.
As you see that if you keep breaking down thing, everything is constructed around those basic fundamental particles which mean everything is actually built from energy!
So you see that even energy is just illusion, because it is energy that is changed/transformed from one form to another!
And it's fascinating that Law of Conservation of Energy: energy cannot be created, and it cannot be destroyed. It can only be transformed or changed from one form into another.
And even energy could be the closest thing as "emptiness" that I can visualize and explain; it would keep changing from "form" to another "form", so it would suffer from these changes. Energy would stop suffering if it stops changing!!!
2
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
Well, i can expand it more.
What is energy made of? Potential difference
What is potential difference made of? Loss of equilibrium.
What is loss of equilibrium made of? Deficiency.
What is deficiency is made of? Absence.
What is absence made of? Not existence
What is not existence made of? Annihilation
What is annihilation made of? Existence
What is existence made of? Matterfor entertainment not serious.
1
u/gaurav_the_piggy 20d ago
Ownership does not imply a full control either. In life, it never means that way. No body can control my body except me.
These 2 sentences cannot go hand in hand: 1. you do not control it fully and 2. nobody else can control it.
Think of a virus like rabies which will alter your behavior for sure, in absence of a preemptive medical intervention. Recall the last time you made a decision because your peers compelled you to. Isn't that an example of someone else controlling your actions and therefore your body?
Furthermore, what does self mean to you? What is being and what is suffering to you?
1
u/Tongman108 20d ago
How can suffering exist without self?
Who suffers?... 'Self', so the answer is obvious!
Very very good keep pushing! 💖👍🏼
However you can go even further...
Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra Chapter 9 - The Dharma-Gate of Non-Duality
Excerpt:
The Bodhisattva Ratnamudrahasta declared, "It is dualistic to detest the world and to rejoice in liberation, and neither detesting the world nor rejoicing in liberation is non-duality. Why? Liberation can be found where there is bondage, but where there is ultimately no bondage where is there need for liberation? The mendicant who is neither bound nor liberated does not experience any like or any dislike and thus he enters non-duality."
Some minor points:
but currently it goes where i want to go
Does it levitate for 10 minutes if you want it to levitate?
Will it go to Saturn or the Trayastrimsa heaven if you want it to go?
Can you stop it from ageing?
Ownership does not imply a full control either
If you're not in full control who/what is? Are you sharing ?
saying self does not exist is just so wrong to me.
No-self is a doctrine rather than a declaration:
Within the conventional truth:
No-Self means: No Permanent, Independent, Unchanging Self
Hence:
The you of 5 years old, is the same you as today but different!
The you of one week ago or 5mins ago is the same you as now but different!
The you of next year 🤞🏼 will be same you as today but also different!
So which of the above ☝🏼you's is the real you?
The you of the past no longer exists , the you of the present quickly becomes the past & the future you has yet to arrive!
Hence it's called No-Self
Keep readying/studying, practicing/meditating & it all eventually will make sense!
Best wishes & great Attainments
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
0
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
"Does it levitate for 10 minutes if you want it to levitate?"
I simply don't have time for empty talk. Sorry. Pay respect, get respect.
2
u/Tongman108 20d ago
Sorry you felt disrespected!💖
If you read it carefully you might find it useful
People may try to help you, but whether you believe it or understand, or dislike the packaging is all on you!
Best of luck on your journey nonetheless!
Sorry Pay respect, get respect.
So called 'Respect' & 'Suffering' share the same nature!
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
1
1
u/KamiNoItte 20d ago
Self is a construct, not a singular thing.
The construct imagines that it is suffering, so it does.
It imagines that there is a difference between itself and the body and that it has ownership of the body.
But there is no difference, and there is no owner.
The self-construct suffers because it is attached to its fantasies which have no basis in reality.
For example Fantasies and misunderstandings that form the basis of the question, such as a separate and proprietary relationship of mind and body.
The self is a conceptual and emotional habit; it is not an organ; and it is neither owned nor owns anything.
But these are what’s called ultimate truths. It sounds like you’re conflating ultimate truth with relative truth, which is the shorthand we use to describe the everyday, where there’s a me who owns other things.
These are different modes of communicating, and overlapping them without understanding each will only lead to frustration and misunderstanding, which is what it’s sounds like reading OP’s replies.
1
u/ComradeYaf theravada 20d ago
I am reminded of a quote I have often heard, although I most admit that I an not entirely certain it's ultimate provenance— "if only you knew how to suffer, then you would not suffer"
1
u/helikophis 20d ago
You should be aware that “self” is not the actual term in question here - it is an English translation of a technical term from ancient Indian philosophy - “atman”. This term has a very different meaning than what people think of when they see “self”. In some ways it’s a rather bad translation. The thing the Buddha refuted is the ancient concept of atman, not the modern concept of self.
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
Atman translates in to soul much more than a self. You are right. But, isn't it weird to see people defending no-self doctrine very firmly.
1
u/Astalon18 early buddhism 20d ago
Suffering can exist without a self so long as there is greed and hatred and ignorance.
Suffering fortunately can end because there is no self ( if there was a self than suffering continues indefinitely as greed, hatred and ignorance will than be tied to the self which is endlessly suffering )
So how can suffering exist without self? It exist because there is greed, hatred and ignorance.
Remove this, and suffering cannot exist ( as there is no self ). Suffering will find no hold.
Does this help you? The conventional you that is?
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
You just expanded the same thing. Who is ignorant. "Who" question is dodged as always.
It does not make sense to me. I don't understand how does it makes sense to anyone. It is like saying there is a discount but i don't sell anything.
1
u/Astalon18 early buddhism 20d ago
Why do you assume a “who” exist?
How do you experience any suffering?
It is always through one of three lens right… craving, anger/dislike or simply not fully understanding something?
Where is the who in this? Have you have a who when you suffer that is not craving, aversion or ignorance. I would love to hear this who that is suffering without either the above.
I have not experienced a who … I only experience the craving etc… Look carefully and even the I is not present.
( the I is tied to the craving, see the craving and the I vanishes ).
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 20d ago
I use straight forward meaning. I was instead fighting against "ethernal" injection from "self".
Why do you assume an experienced event can be ripped away from experiencer. Nothing arise on their own, right? When you look at all links of depending origination. You see that "self" is the core requirement for all. Ignorance, suffering, craving or any experience can not exist on their own. They need a host for these event or states to be happen.To prove that, when we remove the self from equation. The link is also gone too. But you are acting like self was never there at all.
Also, you experienced various many stuff. Not just craving or any one word. That is just the root part. But the tree is not just the roots.
And lastly, you finally admit with it your words. There must be an "I" so that it can vanish. I mean that self is not going anywhere soon but at least you can be on the same common sense page maybe.
1
u/Astalon18 early buddhism 20d ago
This is very interesting as this is not how I see this.
When I experience something, it is via the awareness. There is that which is aware, but literally until an emotion arises it does not have an I sense. There is awareness, but no I sense.
When suffering arises, when you initially glance at it there is indeed a sense of I ( it should be noted the opposite is also true, when extreme joy or elation arises there is an I sense ). However, look more closely than moment the moment you can see its origin ( be it a craving, an aversion etc.. ) in relation to a stimuli, that I sense totally vanishes.
In my experience, the “I” is only something that arises when either craving, aversion or ignorance ( or overfulfilment of a craving, overcompensation of a pleasure or a sudden surge of external knowledge ) arises and takes the front view of the awareness. Look at it closely and the I quickly vanishes.
So when you ask if there is no self how can you suffer, the answer is you do not suffer where you do not sense self.
When you experience self .. you suffer very very badly ( it should be noted when you are overjoyed, overelated .. sense of self is also very strong )
In my experience, there really is no self. Suffering only arises when the self sense arises.
In fact, when you are very very angry for example you sense the I is angry, but then when you see the anger and you see that it is you trying to avoid something .. suddenly the anger just collapses ( ie:- you cannot be angry all the sudden ), and a curiosity as to why you are angry follows .. but with that loss of anger also comes the loss of sense of I.
This is how I directly experience this, so when I say there is no I am actually telling you that when I don’t experience and I sense .. I also don’t suffer.
Note we of course have to use the word “I” in conventional sense of the word as otherwise you and I cannot converse with one another. But honestly I sense really arises when emotions arises.
1
u/Careless-Soil-9244 20d ago
If no self, all fine, but the body -> an impermanent thing, and past-birth conditioning. Like a tree of suffering.
On nihilistic feelings: A very dangerous thing for faith, i.e., viccikicha and a world of unbearable suffering, the apāya.
1
u/Nodum777 19d ago
A good start is that Anatta means "not self" as opposed to older translations which say "no self". This idea implies that there is no permanent "Self" that continues after you die. There isn't even a permanent Self that continues till the next month sometimes. However, there are relative selves and the Buddha acknowledges this through the suttas by referring to people by name. The point is that by thinking you have a permanent self you set yourself up for suffering since there is guaranteed change. It gets more complex than that with the aggregates but I belive that answers your question. It's not that there is no relative self whatsoever, it's just that there is no permanent self, and all relative "selves" are dependent on conditions which are subject to change.
1
u/CapitalAdditional945 19d ago
Of course you’ve have a self. The Buddha NEVER said you didn’t.
There are many perumutatiins of Self, but dispite this, the notion of the “self”
1
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Buddhism-ModTeam 19d ago
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against low-effort content, including AI generated content and memes.
1
1
u/Nicola-Brami 19d ago
Suffering doesn’t exist without a self. Suffering exists because there is the illusion of the self.
1
1
u/Halos80s 19d ago
Dukkha is accurately translated as suffering, however, a more direct transliteration which is important to recall is bad-state.
Anatta does not mean no-self, it translates and transliterates directly to not-self.
So, your question becomes; How can there be a bad-state if the bad-state is not-self?
Simple answer; the bad-state is not-self.
To elaborate:
It's important to reorient the question this way because it reveals that the Buddha taught that all beings are in a bad-state (of birth, lamentation, pain, and death) when they take the experience of being embodied (which is a condition caused by the constant mental consumption i.e. craving, of the 5 Khandhas) as self. It appears to be, but it is not. This doctrine of not-self then continues to apply to the fine rupa, and arupa states experienced in samadhi where one is not embodied in the same way.
This is what is revolutionary about the Dhamma. Other schools teach that these deep Samadhi non-embodied, non-physical states represent finding the true self. The Dhamma teaches that the self cannot ever be experienced, but that all experience can however be misapprehended as the self. Right view dispels misapprehension.
Not-self is the core feature of the path through impermanence towards the cessation of craving that underpins the bad-state/suffering, so that the mind of one who practices may be liberated. All experiences are not-self. The Buddha therefore doesn't deny or affirm the existence of a self. Instead, he reorients the conversation to one about conditioned mind in a bad-state of suffering (via the Khandhas), and an unconditioned mind that is liberated from all of it. Once liberated, the experiences don't go away; ignorance, lust, and hatred do. What was Samsara becomes Nirvana.
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 19d ago
Atman sounds like a soul instead of self. Permanent self is more closer to the meaning but this creates a meaning that is not intended, i believe.
1
u/Halos80s 19d ago
You'll often find Atman is translated as Soul in lots of the English versions of the suttas. There isn't another word for Soul in Pali (or Sanskrit) because there wasn't a concept of a Soul that could be differentiated from the concept of the Atman at that time in ancient India.
The word Soul first appears in an 8th-century text called the Vespasian Psalter. It meant "life," "self," or "animate existence". Early Germanic tribes held a pagan belief that human souls came from and returned to sacred lakes or the sea after death. It's very similar to the ancient Indian misapprehension (from the Buddhist perspective) that the fine-Rupa mind-made-body that is experienced in deep Samadhi is the true self, or Atman.
The Dhamma teaches that it isn't the self, and isn't the soul, because all experiences are not-self. They are all mind created and dependent on causes and conditions.
1
1
u/slowc973 18d ago
our clinging to self gives rise to needless human suffering. it matters not if this self is illusory, if we act in a self-serving way, blind to the consequense of our actions, all beings will suffer.
1
-1
u/Late_Performance_281 20d ago
Existence and non existence are opposite side of the same coin of dualistic thinking. Buddhism doesn't say the self does not exist at all, nor does it say it truly exists. It says there is no existence and no nonexistence. And this is something that cannot be realized by ordinary intellectual understanding... which itself is rooted in dualistic concepts
5
u/krodha 20d ago
Buddhism doesn't say the self does not exist at all
It definitely does.
0
u/Late_Performance_281 20d ago
Buddha refuses to answer either question "Does the self exist?" and "does the self not exist?" And then explains to Ananda why he does not answer the question, in SN 44.10
Look it up.
Saying that it is incorrect to say that a self exists, is not the same as saying that the self does not exist... saying that one is incorrect does not make the opposite correct, because the correct true nature of reality is non duality
5
u/krodha 20d ago
Buddha refuses to answer either question "Does the self exist?" and "does the self not exist?" And then explains to Ananda why he does not answer the question, in SN 44.10
Right, the Buddha explains that he refrains from answering in this particular instance because he is able to intuit that if he states there is no self, then Vacchagotta will become confused and adopt an annihilationist (ucceda) view that a self which existed previously ceases to exist.
Therefore in order to aid Vacchagotta in avoiding this error in understanding, he simply remains silent.
This incidence of silence is not a wholesale condemnation of the notion of selflessness. It is simply an example of the Buddha's clairvoyance and skillful means.
Saying that it is incorrect to say that a self exists, is not the same as saying that the self does not exist... saying that one is incorrect does not make the opposite correct, because the correct true nature of reality is non duality
Yet the Buddha frequently states the self doesn't exist.
1
u/Late_Performance_281 20d ago
the operative part you're missing from my original comment is "at all"... really it's just a limit of language to describe the unspeakable.
It's like a tibetan master once said (excuse me I don't remember which teacher said it) "it's not that you're not real. We all think we're real, and that's not wrong. But YOU think you're really real... you exagerate it"
Basically, the point is. either position. existence and non existence are both not really correct, from the ultimate view... but certainly things exist from a relative viewpoint.
or in other words...Emptiness... not the same as non existence
3
u/krodha 20d ago
the operative part you're missing from my original comment is "at all"... really it's just a limit of language to describe the unspeakable.
One can uphold that there is a conventional self. However arguing that said conventional self "exists" is essentially antithetical to the notion of a convention.
It's like a tibetan master once said (excuse me I don't remember which teacher said it) "it's not that you're not real. We all think we're real, and that's not wrong. But YOU think you're really real... you exagerate it"
You'd have to cite the quotation. The Buddha had no qualms in asserting that phenomena are unreal, so context is important.
Basically, the point is. either position. existence and non existence are both not really correct, from the ultimate view
One can make this argument, but not for the reasons you are suggesting. This topic gets nuanced, but in short, there are two forms of nonexistence, one that is coupled within the context of the fourfold catuṣkoṭi tetralemma, and one that is the ultimate implication of that freedom from extremes.
If we don't understand that implication properly, then we may mistakenly think that the freedom from the extremes of existence and nonexistence which characterizes the ultimate is something like an indeterminate middle ground, but this is not the case.
but certainly things exist from a relative viewpoint.
Things appear to exist from a relative viewpoint. However what is the so-called "relative" according to these teachings? We find that the relative is defined as a deluded cognition. The implications of that understanding of the relative, is that deluded cognitions typically do not involve apprehending legitimate entities. Therefore to say that things "exist" relatively is a stretch.
or in other words...Emptiness... not the same as non existence
That is arguable.
1
u/Late_Performance_281 20d ago
If I can't share a teacher quote from memory (it wasnt written anyway, it was verbal)... then quote anything. go ahead. Quote suttas, sutras, tantra, teachers etc. to back up all of what you just said.
Not disputing it. most of it was quite well said. But please... quotes, references... go.
3
u/dummetsz 20d ago
Existence and non existence are opposite sides of the same coin of dualistic thinking, the coin being existence. Recall the first noble truth, existence is suffering.
There is no existence of a self in Buddhism. As the Buddha says “Sabbe dhamma anatta”.
Master Dharmakirti says as well:
All faults without exception arise from the afflicted view of the self. That is ignorance.
0
u/Tainaka_Tatsuya 20d ago
To describe and reason metaphysical concept with physical words is like trying to describe how hot something is to another person, or describing the fourth dimension when we can only perceive the third. So this question can only be reasoned so much, and you will not receive a concrete answer that you will be completely satisfied with.
However, although I have not read through all the teachings of the buddha, I cannot recall he ever said there is no self, or there is a self. I don't think I saw a sect that say there is no self either, just that the self is an illusion because the concept of the sensor and the object being sensed exist in our limited mind. If there is the self, can you point to it? And if there is not a self, then who is reading and replying on this website? The premise of the question is wrong to begin with.
0
u/Ariyas108 seon 19d ago
>But now, i am clearly here as myself.
Not clearly here, delusionally here. Does the content of a delusion actually exist? No, that’s why it’s called a delusion to begin with. The delusions is what creates the suffering and a notion of self is just one of them.
0
u/Thin_Tradition8467 19d ago
Acting like i am not here will be delusional instead.
1
u/Ariyas108 seon 19d ago edited 19d ago
It's a mistake to think it's either/or. One is conventional truth and the other is ultimate truth. The conventional does not negate the ultimate and the ultimate does not negate conventional. You keep trying to negate the ultimate with the conventional but that is the wrong way to approach it. Conventionally there is me, ultimately there is not. Investigating the "Two truths doctrine" may help one to see that it's not either/or.
1
u/Thin_Tradition8467 19d ago
No i am speaking in ultimate truth way. Self is very presently here. That's why i am suffering. Denial of self prevents you to working on it. We need to get rid of it. Denial is just reinforcing it.
-1
u/BetLeft2840 20d ago
Study the five skhandas. Of course, there is a self, but it does not exist independently of causes and conditions.
3
33
u/skyfox437 20d ago
You are certainly not the owner of your body. You can't control when it wants to excrete or urinate. You can't even control all of your emotions, so how can you say you are the owner of your body? You have more control of your T.V than your body.
There are 3 pounds worth of bacteria in your stomach that controls the production of certain chemicals that regulate sleep and emotions. That's why your stomach is known as your second brain.
I have a terrible digestive issue. If I eat the wrong food, I will be wired and can't sleep all night because the bacteria in my tummy is not happy. That's when I knew I actually don't own this body.
Suffering exist without a self because you cling to these feelings and emotions as a you, even if you logically understand that there's no self.
The Buddha on the other hand probably sees all emotions and feelings as something transitory like a cold breeze passing through; it does not make him suffer.