No-self or Not-self?
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they
learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self.
This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there
being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the
doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the
results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own
Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul
or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of
a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look
at the Pali Canon -- the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings --
you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the
Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to
answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a
self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view
that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should
be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the
meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions
should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.
The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a
categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical
answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that
deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court;
and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists
of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty
of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the
question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't,
for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you
are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then
determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that
there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw
inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them,
and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.
These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings,
but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find
these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self
interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal
self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a
question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw
inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that
there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those
statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is
drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.
So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a
self -- interconnected or separate, eternal or not -- the Buddha felt that
the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the
line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of
self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds
as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does
for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by
every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which
the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make
the quest for happiness -- one's own or that of others -- impossible. For
these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as
"Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to
suffering and stress.
To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he
offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths
of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather
than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one
should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as
they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to
each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation
realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the
context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the
path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being
and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths,
the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my
self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this
particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful
but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit
straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to
chip away at the attachment and clinging -- the residual sense of
self-identification -- that cause it, until ultimately all traces of
self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.
In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a
not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading
to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self,
no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total
freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or
whether or not it's a self?
I exist is an extreme. I don't exist is an extreme. I both exist and not exist is an extreme. I neither exist nor not exist is an extreme.
All four extremes assume there is an entity called 'self' which can exist, not exist, etc. But if we investigate, 'self' is merely a convention for the congregation of the five skandhas (form, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness) arising due to interdependent origination. There is no 'self' to be found in any of the skandas, nor outside the skandas. This is called Emptiness of Self.
No-self is a good way to put it (emptiness of self: no locatable self in the skandas or outside the skandas as a separate observer) as long as it is not mistaken as any one of the extremes.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I exist is an extreme. I don't exist is an extreme. I both exist and not exist is an extreme. I neither exist nor not exist is an extreme.
All four extremes assume there is an entity called 'self' which can exist, not exist, etc. But if we investigate, 'self' is merely a convention for the congregation of the five skandhas (form, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness) arising due to interdependent origination. There is no 'self' to be found in any of the skandas, nor outside the skandas. This is called Emptiness of Self.
No-self is a good way to put it (emptiness of self: no locatable self in the skandas or outside the skandas as a separate observer) as long as it is not mistaken as any one of the extremes.
chances are people who get in touch with this concept have the tendency to fall into extremes.
for example, previously i would have been misled to think that "i neither exist nor not exist" might be the correct thinking.
for me this concept is not useful at all to me, because obviously right now there's obviously an "I" existing now, and seriously, being totally clouded by delusion in this current life and form, i cannot see anything beyond that.
what is of use to me though, is the 'true mind' and 'buddha nature' thing. it is known that one passes from life to life, and even though the "i" in the present life is not exactly the same with the "i" in the past life, it is not totally unrelated. there is still this continuum. due to cause and effect. and the impt thing is the suffering experienced thruout is real(since from time immemorial we have not seen thru our true buddha nature and severed the birth and death cycle) and i guess it is safe to say that it is kind of the same "you" experiencing it thruout. put it this way it is not diffct for normal pple to understand too. correct me if i'm wrong, i know too well it is far too easy to say the wrong thing.
i also have a question here: is it true that the concept of the "true mind" is not taught in theravada teachings?
Originally posted by disappear:
chances are people who get in touch with this concept have the tendency to fall into extremes.for example, previously i would have been misled to think that "i neither exist nor not exist" might be the correct thinking.
for me this concept is not useful at all to me, because obviously right now there's obviously an "I" existing now, and seriously, being totally clouded by delusion in this current life and form, i cannot see anything beyond that.
what is of use to me though, is the 'true mind' and 'buddha nature' thing. it is known that one passes from life to life, and even though the "i" in the present life is not exactly the same with the "i" in the past life, it is not totally unrelated. there is still this continuum. due to cause and effect. and the impt thing is the suffering experienced thruout is real(since from time immemorial we have not seen thru our true buddha nature and severed the birth and death cycle) and i guess it is safe to say that it is kind of the same "you" experiencing it thruout. put it this way it is not diffct for normal pple to understand too. correct me if i'm wrong, i know too well it is far too easy to say the wrong thing.
i also have a question here: is it true that the concept of the "true mind" is not taught in theravada teachings?
It is not the same 'you'.
In the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena:
"What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"
"A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King."
"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical
combination as this present one?"
"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces
kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and
through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be
born."
And yes, Theravada does not have this concept.
True Mind is very easily mistaken to be the Hinduism's Atman. We must not make the same mistake.
ok, its not the same "you", but seriously i see that something still got to be the same. that something which is the same which gives rise to one continuum of different lives where the suffering experienced is real. beyond that, i dont think i can understand more, and i dont need to as i dont have the faculty.
as u might aware i'm pureland, to think that "I" want to be "reborn" in the "pureland". to me, this "attachment" to form is safe.
Originally posted by disappear:ok, its not the same "you", but seriously i see that something still got to be the same. that something which is the same which gives rise to one continuum of different lives where the suffering experienced is real. beyond that, i dont think i can understand more, and i dont need to as i dont have the faculty.
as u might aware i'm pureland, to think that "I" want to be "reborn" in the "pureland". to me, this "attachment" to form is safe.
Everywhere, in all the realms of existence, the noble disciple
sees only mental and corporeal phenomena kept going through the
concatenation of causes and effects. No producer of the
volitional act or kamma does he see apart from the kamma, no
recipient of the kamma-result apart from the result. And he is
well aware that wise men are using merely conventional language,
when, with regard to a kammical act, they speak of a doer, or
with regard to a kamma-result, they speak of the recipient of the
result.
No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits;
Empty phenomena roll on:
This only is the correct view.
And while the deeds and their results
Roll on and on, conditioned all,
There is no first beginning found,
Just as it is with seed and tree. ...
No god, no Brahma, can be called
The maker of this wheel of life:
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all.
Visuddhimagga XIX.
On Suffering:
"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen."
"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen."
again this is useless for me. why? let me giv example
u try telling a suffering person "mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found". what no sufferer?! to that person isnt this rubbish? the person is clearly suffering, im clearly suffering and to me the suffering is real. thats what i meant. if we could really see that our suffering is not real, or that there isnt really any sufferer, then we are enlightenment already.
i may be wrong, but i suspect that even if people can understand those phrases, it is only at the concept-wise level only. when faced with real situations due to their karma, they'll just be as clueless and lost.
Note that it didn't say suffering and pain is not real
It says the sufferer is not real.
When you feel pain, there is just pain that's all. The notion of a sufferer is imagination. The pain is what is real.
Of course ultimately even pain is empty in the sense that its conditioned, impermanent, etc. But it's vivid. Like a mirage, it's without substance, but still 'appears real'. But the vividness of the sensation is just as important as its emptiness.