Non-Action

• An Eternal Now

  25 May 13, 17:17

  Non-Action

  Posted by: An Eternal Now

  

  
  I wrote this in Facebook in reply to a friend Din Robinson to whom Thusness wrote his "7 stages of experience" (originally 6) in 2006:
  
  Din: "as soon as you take any action or any need for training, then you are perpetuating the myth of a "you" that exists in time and space, not that there's any wrong with that!"
  
  My reply:
  
  This is not true. This is as ridiculous as saying "as long as you take any action to keep fit, such as going to gym, then you are perpetuating the myth of a "you" that exists in time and space"
  
  or
  
  "as long as you take any action to pass your exams, such as studying hard, then you are perpetuating the myth of a "you" that exists in time and space"
  
  or
  
  "as long as you take any action to survive, such as eating and sleeping, then you are perpetuating the myth of a "you" that exists in time and space"
  
  or
  
  "as long as you take any action to cure your disease, such as seeing the doctor, then you are perpetuating the myth of a "you" that exists in time and space"
  
  No-self/Anatta is not about denying thinking, action, carrying water and chopping wood... and this is the key difference between genuine anatta insight from dualistic conceptual understanding. The very notion that "action" and "intention" implies, or necessitates, an "actor", and therefore for non-action the intentions and actions must also cease, is precisely using dualistic thinking to understanding anatta...
  
  Action never required a self (in fact there never was a self or a doer apart from action to begin with: only a delusion of one), and action does not need to perpetuate the myth of a self. The myth of a self is not exactly dependent on action or lack thereof. Sure, action that arises out of the dualistic sense of actor/act where there is an "I" trying to modify or achieve "that" is a form of action produced by ignorance. But not all actions necessarily arise out of an underlying sense of duality. If all actions arise out of a sense of duality, then after awakening one will just wither and die as he cannot even feed himself.
  
  When one is operating with a dualistic way of understanding, one thinks that action implies a self that is doing an act, and one thinks that non-action implies that the self ends with the action. But genuine insight into non-action is simply the realization that never was there a real actor behind action, so there is always in acting just that action - whole being is only the total exertion of action, and this is always already the case but not realized. That is true non-action - there is no subject (actor) performing an act (object).
  
  Futhermore: The myth of a self is not dependent on practice and lack thereof. (Oh but, 'right practice' and 'contemplation' does a lot to deconstruct that myth!) The myth of a self is however dependent on ignorance, and only wisdom ends that ignorance, just like turning on the lights lead to the natural cessation of irrational fear and thinking of monster in the dark room by a child.
  
  There is always only action without a doer. No doer does not deny action, it denies agency, and realization of such leads to the direct, immediate, experience of total exertion/total action where doer/deed is refined till none in one whole movement. There is nothing passive about non-action. Non-action is simply action without self/Self. All actions performed without sense of self/Self is in fact non-action. Without the subjective pole (actor), the objective pole in contrast to the subject (being acted upon) is also automatically negated. Yet clearly, the total exertion - pure action... goes on.
  
  Dogen calls this practice-enlightenment. You do not practice For enlightenment (as some future goal separated from you). Your very practice of actualizing insight of anatta itself is practice-enlightenment. Sitting down is practice is actualization is Buddha-nature is enlightenment. Shitting too can be practice/actualization and that very act is Buddha-nature is enlightenment. Your very practice/actualization/act of just sitting, hearing the wind blowing, sight of scenery, walking on the street, chop wood carry water (without any delusion of self/Self) - that itself is practice-actualization-enlightenment, that is the total exertion where entire being is just entire sound, entire scenery, entire action.. This is non-dual practice and non-dual action.

  Labels: Action, Anatta 0 comments | |

• Aik TC

  25 May 13, 18:26

   

  The myth of a self is however dependent on ignorance

   

  The below Cetana Sutta listed 6 other obsessions beside ignorance that are causes for the arising of the notion of ‘Self’ and a future rebirth.

   

  SN 12.38 Cetana Sutta: Intention

  Staying at Savatthi... [the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about:[1] This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

  "If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

  "But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

  Notes

  1.

  The seven obsessions are: the obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, and the obsession of ignorance. See AN 7.12.

   

• 2009novice

  26 May 13, 01:02

  actually i thought...... observing the aggregates can realize non-self too right...? Because action (volition) is part of it - dependent on external simulants or internal thoughts (if) to carry out an action
  
  all the process seem too seamless as if there is a self (or a person) doing it... which i think is no

• An Eternal Now

  26 May 13, 12:00

  Originally posted by Aik TC:

   

  The myth of a self is however dependent on ignorance

   

  The below Cetana Sutta listed 6 other obsessions beside ignorance that are causes for the arising of the notion of ‘Self’ and a future rebirth.

   

  SN 12.38 Cetana Sutta: Intention

  Staying at Savatthi... [the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about:[1] This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

  "If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

  "But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

  Notes

  1.

  The seven obsessions are: the obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, and the obsession of ignorance. See AN 7.12.

   

  Those are seven obsessions, not seven causes of the notion of 'self'. Those seven obsessions are however rooted in the notion of 'I, me, mine'.
  
  The notion of 'self' is ignorance, and ignorance is predicated on 1) not realizing the true nature of dharma, and 2) falsely assuming various aggregates to be self.
  
  
  Buddha:
  
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.003.than.html

  "Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."

  "But, venerable sir, how does self-identity view come into being?"

  "There is the case, householder, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form[2] to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view comes into being."

  "And, venerable sir, how does self-identity view not come into being?"

  "There is the case, householder, 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 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. This is how self-identity view does not come into being."

  
  

• An Eternal Now

  26 May 13, 12:01

  Originally posted by 2009novice:

  actually i thought...... observing the aggregates can realize non-self too right...? Because action (volition) is part of it - dependent on external simulants or internal thoughts (if) to carry out an action
  
  all the process seem too seamless as if there is a self (or a person) doing it... which i think is no

  Not just observing the aggregates, but contemplating the non-self nature of aggregates.
  
  Contemplating along these lines will lead to realization of no self:
  
  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
  
  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html

• 2009novice

  26 May 13, 12:18

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  Not just observing the aggregates, but contemplating the non-self nature of aggregates.
  
  Contemplating along these lines will lead to realization of no self:
  
  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
  
  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html

  ic thanks alot

• Aik TC

  26 May 13, 14:42

  Those are seven obsessions, not seven causes of the notion of 'self'. Those seven obsessions are however rooted in the notion of 'I, me, mine'.

   

  They are latent tendencies in unenlightened beings. They can also be the likely causes and nutriments for the arising of the ‘I, me, mine, you, yours’ as well.
  
  
  

  The notion of 'self' is ignorance, and ignorance is predicated on 1) not realizing the true nature of dharma, and 2) falsely assuming various aggregates to be self.

   

  Ignorance in addition to been used as a wrong identification for a ‘Self‘, or a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reality, also applies to mean not fully understanding the meaning and implication of the four noble truths as elaborated in MN 9 below:-

   

  MN 9 Sammaditthi Sutta: Right View

   

  "And what is ignorance? What is the origination of ignorance? What is the cessation of ignorance? What is the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance?

   

  "Any lack of knowledge with reference to stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the origination of stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the cessation of stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress. This is called ignorance.

   

  "From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of ignorance. And the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

   

  "Now, when a disciple of the noble ones discerns ignorance, the origination of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance in this way, when — having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished aversion-obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession 'I am'; having abandoned ignorance & given rise to clear knowing — he has put an end to suffering & stress right in the here-&-now, it is to this extent, too, that a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma."

   

   

• An Eternal Now

  27 May 13, 12:05

  The delusion of 'self' is related to not seeing the four noble truths.
  
  Once you see through the imputation of 'self', you realize what lies behind the imputation or is the basis of that imputation is actually a whole aggregation of stress, you realize that grasping and craving behind that process, you realize the end of that afflictive process is possible (and you also glimpse a complete end of that process of 'I making' in direct experience) and the path to that end is also intuitively known.
  
  The problem is that men without training in this path continuously treat the aggregates as changeless, pleasant, and self/mine. This completely prevents us from seeing the four noble truths in action. Once we see dharmas in their true state, we do not see changeless, we do not see self, instead we see arising and passing away, we see dependent origination.

• Aik TC

  29 May 13, 21:21

   

  //To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he (The Buddha) 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?// 

   

  Extract from: ‘No-self or Not-self?’ by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

   

   

• An Eternal Now

  30 May 13, 18:06

  Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article is problematic.
  
  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html

  robertk:
  
  This is an old post from ven. Dhammanando that i liked
  http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index. ... 3364&st=60
  Citing the relevant suttas is unlikely to be persuasive to those who have fallen for Thanissaro's mystical drivel, for Thanissaro would simply interpret them differently or else would translate them differently so as to make them support his view. A good example of this is the following passage from the Alagaddūpamasutta, which is one of the starkest and most uncompromising assertions of the non-existence of self.... until Thanissaro gets his hands on it:
  
  attani ca attaniye ca saccato thetato anupalabbham�ne
  (MN. 22; also cited in the Kath�vatthu's debate on the puggalav�da, Kvu. 68)
  
  And here are some extracts from an old article of mine discussing this phrase...
  
  First I cite seven translations of it:
  
  
  Dhammanando:
  "...since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self..."
  
  ÑÄ�ṇamoli/Bodhi:
  "...since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established..."
  
  Thanissaro:
  "...where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality..."
  
  B.C. Law:
  "...But both soul and that which belongs to soul being in truth, and forever, impossible to be known..."
  
  I.B. Horner:
  "But if Self and what belongs to Self, although actually existing are incomprehensible..."
  
  Mah�makut Tipiṭaka:
  "...meua att� lae borikh�n neuang duai att� bukkhon theu ao mai dai, doey khw�m pen khong jing, doey khw�m pen khong thae..."
  
  Mah�chulalongkorn Tipiṭaka:
  "...meua thang ton lae khong thii neuang kap ton ja yang hen mai dai, doey khw�m pen khong jing, doey khw�m pen khong thae..."
  
  
  Then my comments:
  
  Of the seven renderings above, those of Horner and Law are completely off the map, while the remaining five are more or less defensible so far as purely philological considerations go.
  
  There are two key terms in the passage that give rise to disagreement: firstly, the participle "anupalabbham�ne"; secondly, the phrase "saccato thetato". How one conceives the meaning of these will determine how one interprets the passage; and how one interprets the passage will determine how one goes about translating it. The problem, of course, is that every translator's interpretation of the above phrases will be determined - or at least influenced - by his prior assumptions about the Buddha's teaching.
  
  Let's start with anupalabbham�ne. This is the present participle of the passive form of the verb upalabhati, inflected in the locative case. In front of it is placed the negative particle na ('not'), which changes to an- in accordance with the rules of euphonic junction.

  Upalabhati means to obtain, get or find. So in the passive voice it would mean to be obtained, gotten or found. With the addition of the negative particle 'na' the meaning would be "not to be found."
  
  Here's one familiar example of the verb, to be found in every Indian logic textbook:
  
  vañjhÄ�ya putto na upalabbhati.
  "A son of a barren woman is not to be found."
  
  (Or as western philosophers would phrase it, " 'Son of a barren woman' does not obtain."). Elsewhere the same will be predicated of "horns of a hare", "flowers in the sky", etc.
  
  And here arises the first point of controversy among translators and interpreters of this sutta: does the phrase "not to be obtained" mean the same as "not exist"? ÑÄ�ṇamoli, Bodhi and myself would answer yes. A mystically-inclined monk like Thanissaro would answer no. Unsurprisingly Thanissaro has chosen a rendering ("not pinned down") that stresses the epistemic or cognitive, and would tend to imply that a self does (or at least might) exist, but one that is too inscrutable to say anything about.
  
  To continue, when the verb na upalabbhati is made into a present participle, the meaning would be "non-obtaining" (or more precisely, a "not-being-obtained-ness"). When this present participle is inflected in the locative case, then various meanings are possible, and here arises the second point of controversy. What function does the locative have in this context? There are three possibilities:
  
  Spatial or situational stipulative: "Where there is a non-obtaining of self..."
  Temporal stipulative: "When there is a non-obtaining of self...."
  Causative: "Because there is a non-obtaining of self..."
  
  ÑÄ�ṇamoli, Bodhi and I of course favour the causative, for the other two would leave a loophole that there might be some time or place where self does obtain. Thanissaro of course favours a reading that will leave his mysticism intact. So here too it's a case of our prior assumptions determining how we translate.
  
  Now for "saccato thetato". Sacca means true or a truth; theta means sure, firm, or reliable, or something that has these features. Adding the suffix -to turns these words into adverbs. Here I'm not really sure about the relative merits of the above translations, or even if there is a difference between "X does not obtain as a truth" or "X does not in truth obtain." Not that this matters greatly; the crux of the matter is obviously the word anupalabbhamÄ�ne. The difference between my old rendering and the ÑÄ�ṇamoli/Bodhi one is that I had taken saccato thetato to be an adverbial qualification of anupalabbhamÄ�ne, whereas ÑÄ�ṇamoli and Bodhi make it more like an adjectival qualification of "self and what belongs to self." I now think that their rendering is more likely to be correct. At least it seems to accord better with the ṬīkÄ� to this sutta.
  
  Best wishes,
  Dhammanando Bhikkhu

• An Eternal Now

  30 May 13, 18:09

  
  Cooran (moderator of Dhammawheel) pointed out that a note to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation of this sutta is worth considering:
  
  ‘’We should carefully heed the two reasons that the Buddha does not declare, ‘’There is no self’’: not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is concerned only with delineating ‘’a strategy of perception’’ devoid of ontological implications (as others hold), but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that ‘all phenomena are nonself’’ (sabbe dhamma anatta), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since ‘’all phenomena’’ includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self."
  
  (Part of Note 385 on Page 1457 of The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikkhu Bodhi).)

• An Eternal Now

  30 May 13, 18:12

  Thusness:
  
  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html#IgnoranceDisassociation
  
  If we were to practice observing impermanence of phenomena while the ‘blinding spell’ is still strong, the purpose of the practice appears to swerve towards dispassion, dis-identification and disassociation. In fact it is quite fine even if it is understood that way but many can’t stop at dispassion and dis-identification and rest in perfect contentment in groundlessness. Somehow they will ‘conjure’ out a permanent unchanging state to rest upon. ‘Not self, not mine’ sounds as if there is something ‘Mine or Self’. I would prefer practitioners to treat ‘anatta’ as ‘there is absolutely nothing that can be said to be mine or self’; even then this realization that ‘there is absolutely nothing that can be said to be mine or self’ should not be misunderstood as the experiential insight of anatta (see On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection). I have placed stronger emphasis on this aspect as in Buddhism, nothing is more important than to arise the insight of anatta and dependent origination because it is wisdom (prajna wisdom in particular) that liberates (since the cause of suffering is ignorance). Do not take it too lightly. :)
  
  Nevertheless this progression seems quite inevitable because the mind is ruled by ignorance (dualistic and inherent tendency). More amazingly, the mind can fabricate such a state and think that it is the resting place, nirvana. This is the danger of all dangers because like what Rob said, it is so beautiful and fits so nicely into the ideal model of an inherent and dualistic mind. When a practitioner gets into it, it is difficult to let go.

• Aik TC

  2 Jun 13, 00:20

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article is problematic.
  
  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html

  robertk:
  
  This is an old post from ven. Dhammanando that i liked
  http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index. ... 3364&st=60
  Citing the relevant suttas is unlikely to be persuasive to those who have fallen for Thanissaro's mystical drivel, for Thanissaro would simply interpret them differently or else would translate them differently so as to make them support his view. A good example of this is the following passage from the Alagaddūpamasutta, which is one of the starkest and most uncompromising assertions of the non-existence of self.... until Thanissaro gets his hands on it:
  
  attani ca attaniye ca saccato thetato anupalabbham�ne
  (MN. 22; also cited in the Kath�vatthu's debate on the puggalav�da, Kvu. 68)
  
  And here are some extracts from an old article of mine discussing this phrase...
  
  First I cite seven translations of it:
  
  
  Dhammanando:
  "...since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self..."
  
  ÑÄ�ṇamoli/Bodhi:
  "...since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established..."
  
  Thanissaro:
  "...where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality..."
  
  B.C. Law:
  "...But both soul and that which belongs to soul being in truth, and forever, impossible to be known..."
  
  I.B. Horner:
  "But if Self and what belongs to Self, although actually existing are incomprehensible..."
  
  Mah�makut Tipiṭaka:
  "...meua att� lae borikh�n neuang duai att� bukkhon theu ao mai dai, doey khw�m pen khong jing, doey khw�m pen khong thae..."
  
  Mah�chulalongkorn Tipiṭaka:
  "...meua thang ton lae khong thii neuang kap ton ja yang hen mai dai, doey khw�m pen khong jing, doey khw�m pen khong thae..."
  
  
  Then my comments:
  
  Of the seven renderings above, those of Horner and Law are completely off the map, while the remaining five are more or less defensible so far as purely philological considerations go.
  
  There are two key terms in the passage that give rise to disagreement: firstly, the participle "anupalabbham�ne"; secondly, the phrase "saccato thetato". How one conceives the meaning of these will determine how one interprets the passage; and how one interprets the passage will determine how one goes about translating it. The problem, of course, is that every translator's interpretation of the above phrases will be determined - or at least influenced - by his prior assumptions about the Buddha's teaching.
  
  Let's start with anupalabbham�ne. This is the present participle of the passive form of the verb upalabhati, inflected in the locative case. In front of it is placed the negative particle na ('not'), which changes to an- in accordance with the rules of euphonic junction.

  Upalabhati means to obtain, get or find. So in the passive voice it would mean to be obtained, gotten or found. With the addition of the negative particle 'na' the meaning would be "not to be found."
  
  Here's one familiar example of the verb, to be found in every Indian logic textbook:
  
  vañjhÄ�ya putto na upalabbhati.
  "A son of a barren woman is not to be found."
  
  (Or as western philosophers would phrase it, " 'Son of a barren woman' does not obtain."). Elsewhere the same will be predicated of "horns of a hare", "flowers in the sky", etc.
  
  And here arises the first point of controversy among translators and interpreters of this sutta: does the phrase "not to be obtained" mean the same as "not exist"? ÑÄ�ṇamoli, Bodhi and myself would answer yes. A mystically-inclined monk like Thanissaro would answer no. Unsurprisingly Thanissaro has chosen a rendering ("not pinned down") that stresses the epistemic or cognitive, and would tend to imply that a self does (or at least might) exist, but one that is too inscrutable to say anything about.
  
  To continue, when the verb na upalabbhati is made into a present participle, the meaning would be "non-obtaining" (or more precisely, a "not-being-obtained-ness"). When this present participle is inflected in the locative case, then various meanings are possible, and here arises the second point of controversy. What function does the locative have in this context? There are three possibilities:
  
  Spatial or situational stipulative: "Where there is a non-obtaining of self..."
  Temporal stipulative: "When there is a non-obtaining of self...."
  Causative: "Because there is a non-obtaining of self..."
  
  ÑÄ�ṇamoli, Bodhi and I of course favour the causative, for the other two would leave a loophole that there might be some time or place where self does obtain. Thanissaro of course favours a reading that will leave his mysticism intact. So here too it's a case of our prior assumptions determining how we translate.
  
  Now for "saccato thetato". Sacca means true or a truth; theta means sure, firm, or reliable, or something that has these features. Adding the suffix -to turns these words into adverbs. Here I'm not really sure about the relative merits of the above translations, or even if there is a difference between "X does not obtain as a truth" or "X does not in truth obtain." Not that this matters greatly; the crux of the matter is obviously the word anupalabbhamÄ�ne. The difference between my old rendering and the ÑÄ�ṇamoli/Bodhi one is that I had taken saccato thetato to be an adverbial qualification of anupalabbhamÄ�ne, whereas ÑÄ�ṇamoli and Bodhi make it more like an adjectival qualification of "self and what belongs to self." I now think that their rendering is more likely to be correct. At least it seems to accord better with the ṬīkÄ� to this sutta.
  
  Best wishes,
  Dhammanando Bhikkhu

   

  Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article is problematic.

   

  There may be some disagreement in one of the phrase of his interpretation in MN 22. Basically to me, it is a disagreement between scholars and their personal conclusions. But I am not sure where in the above extract by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is problematic. I thought he is only using the four Noble Truths as a ‘not-self strategy’ for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness which would eventually means the letting go of what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self that is involved.

   

  A ‘run-of-the-mill’ person will need to understand to a sufficient degree the basic of the Buddhist teachings to have a good understanding of the doctrine of anatta. Thanissaro Bhikkhu reading on the doctrine of Not Self would certainly help. In fact for a ‘run-of-the-mill’ person to understand what is described in your link http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html, will require not just a good understanding of the doctrine of anatta but also some deep thoughts and contemplation as well.

   

  Quote one extract here: //since self and dharma has never arisen to begin with, cannot be established to begin with, cannot be pinned down to begin with, therefore self and dharma cannot go into non-existence, or be both and neither.

   

  And if we cannot pin down an entity called 'self' to begin with, how can we assert the non-existence of a self: which means that an existent 'self' annihilates or goes into non-existence? To assert non-existence, you must have a base, an existent entity to begin with, that could become non-existent. If the convention 'self' is baseless to begin with, then existence, non-existence, both and neither become untenable positions.//

   

  Oh, and never mind the pitfall and danger as pointed out in your post by Thusness  unless of course one thinks one have already realised anatta. Then it is about time to take a good look at ourselves to see whether we have fall into that pitfall.

   

  Anyway, it is a good reminder and information to keep in mind. Thanks.

   

   

    

   

   

• An Eternal Now

  2 Jun 13, 15:02

  The problem is that Thanissaro is having an opinion that Buddha  "is concerned only with delineating ‘’a strategy of perception’’ devoid of ontological implications (as others hold)"
  
  And because of this, he completely misses the essence of what Anatta insight is about. Not-self is not just a "strategy of letting go", it is a truth, and there must be experiential realization of this truth and that is not being described by Thanissaro. After realizing the truth there is naturally letting go - but it is not due to 'taking not-self as a strategy to dissociate with things'. That is far, far, away from seeing the essence of anatta.
  
  This sutta however is very clear about that realization of anatta view:
  
  
  Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses: "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases."
  
  - Vajira Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.than.html

• Aik TC

  2 Jun 13, 18:02

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  The problem is that Thanissaro is having an opinion that Buddha  "is concerned only with delineating ‘’a strategy of perception’’ devoid of ontological implications (as others hold)"
  
  And because of this, he completely misses the essence of what Anatta insight is about. Not-self is not just a "strategy of letting go", it is a truth, and there must be experiential realization of this truth and that is not being described by Thanissaro. After realizing the truth there is naturally letting go - but it is not due to 'taking not-self as a strategy to dissociate with things'. That is far, far, away from seeing the essence of anatta.
  
  This sutta however is very clear about that realization of anatta view:
  
  
  Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses: "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases."
  
  - Vajira Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.than.html

   

  In my opinion, without having to specifically stated as so, the four Noble Truths is as a whole already implicitly ontological as well as soteriologically in its description.

   

  As Thanissaro put it, rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to a self it should be look at as just direct experience and in term of the Noble Truths, than 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. Ultimately it should help one to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging, the residual sense of self-identification until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.

   

  His above description does not sound like 'taking not-self as a strategy to dissociate with things'. It is more to me, taking a direct experience of the Noble Truths as he put it to ‘chip away at attachment and clinging’ to eventually remove all vestige of a self. Though not stated, I would presume that the essence of anatta would then be realized.

   

  In your case, letting go will come naturally after insight into anatta. My question is, can experience and realization of this truth be attained without first of all erasing away all attachments and clinging? Or is this insight into anatta with attachments and clinging still present just one having a good understand of the doctrine and having a Right View of existence?

   

• An Eternal Now

  2 Jun 13, 21:24

  In my experience, there can be no true letting go of 'self' until insight arises. After insight a large chunk of attachment (maybe not all) does dissolve away.
  
  Just as Thusness wrote:
  
  
  "...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another from of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force urself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."
  
  ~ Thusness
  
  
  
  "...it seems that lots of effort need to be put in -- which is really not the case. The entire practice turns out to an undoing process. It is a process of gradually understanding the workings of our nature that is from beginning liberated but clouded by this sense of ‘self’ that is always trying to preserve, protect and ever attached. The entire sense of self is a ‘doing’. Whatever we do, positive or negative, is still doing. Ultimately there is not-even a letting go or let be, as there is already continuous dissolving and arising and this ever dissolving and arising turns out to be self-liberating. Without this ‘self’ or ‘Self’, there is no ‘doing’, there is only spontaneous arising. :)"
  
  ~ our forummer, Thusness (source: Non-dual and karmic patterns)

• An Eternal Now

  2 Jun 13, 23:22

  When Thanissaro said "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?""
  
  He is indirectly promoting samadhi over wisdom.
  In this case there is no need for any expounding of what Buddha have realized and needless to consider and understand DO. Freedom does not arise from mistaken view.more precisely, liberation does not arise from mistaken view.

• Pegembara

  3 Jun 13, 21:17

  In my experience, there can be no true letting go of 'self' until insight into dukkha arises.

   

  It sticks on the skin and goes into the flesh; from the flesh, it gets into the bones. It's like an insect on a tree that eats through the bark, into the wood, and then into the core, until finally the tree dies.

  "We've grown up like that. It gets buried deep inside. Our parents taught us grasping and attachment, giving meaning to things, believing firmly that we exist as a self-entity and that things belong to us. From our birth that's what we are taught. We hear this over and over again, and it penetrates our hearts and stays there as our habitual feeling. We're taught to get things, to accumulate and hold on to them, to see them as important and as ours. This is what our parents know, and this is what they teach us. So it gets into our minds, into our bones.

  When we take an interest in meditation and hear the teaching of a spiritual guide, it's not easy to understand. It doesn't really grab us. We're taught not to see and do things the old way, but when we hear it, it doesn't penetrate the mind; we only hear it with our ears. People just don't know themselves.

  If we come across a pile of buffalo dung, we won't think it's ours and we won't want to pick it up. We will just leave it where it is, because we know what it is. 

  It's like that. That's what's good in the way of the impure. That which is evil is the food of bad people. If you teach them about doing good, they're not interested, but prefer to stay as they are, because they don't see the harm in it. Without seeing the harm, there's no way things can be rectified. If you recognize it, then you think, "Oh! My whole pile of shit doesn't have the value of a small piece of gold!" and then you will want gold instead; you won't want the dung anymore. If you don't recognize this, you remain the owner of a pile of dung. If you are offered a diamond or a ruby, you won't be interested. 

  ~ Understanding Dukkha  Aj Chah http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha245.htm

• allkosong

  20 Jun 13, 09:57

  Hello all,

  I have a question:

  Regardless of whether we realize it or not, there is in reality no doer (ie. no self) anyways.  So what is the difference (where day to day life is concerned) between having realized it and not?  Why the need to get enlightened if life is going to unfold exactly the way it is meant to unfold anyways?

   

  Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.

• Jui

  20 Jun 13, 10:22

  Life still happens, but you'll begin to stop reacting to it in a dysfunctional way that causes much stress and unhappiness. When your relationship with yourself and the things around you gets turned on its head after realization, you can (and most certainly will) change the old way that you go through in life. In short, you start to become mentally free.

• allkosong

  20 Jun 13, 10:31

  Originally posted by Jui:

  Life still happens, but you'll begin to stop reacting to it in a dysfunctional way that causes much stress and unhappiness. When your relationship with yourself and the things around you gets turned on its head after realization, you can (and most certainly will) change the old way that you go through in life. In short, you start to become mentally free.

  But then, here you're assuming that there is a "YOU" to begin with that can achieve realization and become mentally free.  

  I'm thinking that if there is no self/doer, whether we are living in stress or mental freedom would be all meant to be, ie. not within "our" control.  Could you please explain this contradiction?

• Jui

  20 Jun 13, 11:14

  You're right, there's no "you" to begin with to attain anything. So, since there's no "you" who's doing the choosing? No one. The whole thing is just an action. But this does not mean there's no choice nor "control".

  I guess we have to touch on "free" will and determinism a bit here. If the world functions only through determinism then there's no need for the dharma to be expounded by the Buddha, since there's no way we can change the course of our lives and get out of samsara. But we can change the course, as long as there's a will to. It's just that we must recognise that this will itself is based upon the numerous conditions present.

  Stress and mental freedom is dependent on conditions as well. Realization (or not) of emptiness of the self and/or phenomena will directly affect the outcome that we will label as stress or freedom.

• allkosong

  20 Jun 13, 11:34

  Originally posted by Jui:

  You're right, there's no "you" to begin with to attain anything. So, since there's no "you" who's doing the choosing? No one. The whole thing is just an action. But this does not mean there's no choice nor "control".

  I guess we have to touch on "free" will and determinism a bit here. If the world functions only through determinism then there's no need for the dharma to be expounded by the Buddha, since there's no way we can change the course of our lives and get out of samsara. But we can change the course, as long as there's a will to. It's just that we must recognise that this will itself is based upon the numerous conditions present.

  Stress and mental freedom is dependent on conditions as well. Realization (or not) of emptiness of the self and/or phenomena will directly affect the outcome that we will label as stress or freedom.

  Thank you for clarifying, but this is something that has confused me for a long time.  If there is no doer, how can there be any tiniest bit of free will or choice or control at all?

  Yes, according to this line of reasoning, even "will" is dependent on conditions... none of which is within "our" control.  In short, whether we have the will to change our course and get out of samsara or not is also not in "our" control.  Everything just happens accordingly.  Is that correct?

• allkosong

  20 Jun 13, 11:48

  Originally posted by allkosong:

  Thank you for clarifying, but this is something that has confused me for a long time.  If there is no doer, how can there be any tiniest bit of free will or choice or control at all?

  Yes, according to this line of reasoning, even "will" is dependent on conditions... none of which is within "our" control.  In short, whether we have the will to change our course and get out of samsara or not is also not in "our" control.  Everything just happens accordingly.  Is that correct?

  PS: Ramana Maharshi did say that "EVERYTHING is predetermined.".  I am really starting to believe in determinism.

• Aik TC

  20 Jun 13, 17:46

  Originally posted by allkosong:

  PS: Ramana Maharshi did say that "EVERYTHING is predetermined.".  I am really starting to believe in determinism.

   

  //Yes, according to this line of reasoning, even "will" is dependent on conditions... none of which is within "our" control. In short, whether we have the will to change our course and get out of samsara or not is also not in "our" control. Everything just happens accordingly. Is that correct?//

  Karma in Buddhism is strictly psychological and not metaphysical. The Buddha said ‘Volition, O monks, is what I call actions’. In other words, when there is intention, there is karmic action which results in the consequences of character forming and determines our inclinations and thus our future actions and reaction. Character thus, is the tendency of our will, form from repeated actions.

  Free will is the expression of one’s own will, the will that correspond to one’s own nature. It also presume and includes the idea of individuality or individual character, if it is free, it express the particular character of the individual. The difference between a law of nature and free will is that one acts automatically and with universal sameness, while the other is conscious and individual. Free will is a relative term. It is the relationship of a conscious individual towards his surrounding or toward a certain situation.

  It also means the freedom to express one’s own will according to one’s own nature and insight. It is not a mechanical reaction, and may or may not follow general laws, but one can modify them and converts them into individual laws. There can be no absolute free will. When necessity from outside coincide with the inner law or nature of the individual, it becomes a truly genuine expression of freedom, of free will itself.

  To the Buddhists, Free Will is a freedom inside the limits of Necessity, namely the necessity of retribution based on the Law of Causality. It is the freedom to move within the boundaries of causation, a freedom inside the prison of Dependent Origination.

  Life itself is a constant movement towards an issue in final deliverance. It is an evolution of our moral progress. When all good deeds have brought their fruition as in the Law of Karma, final deliverance will be attained in Nirvana. The absolute is reached, causation than become extinct and Free Will, will become an inconsequential factor in one’s life.

  The Buddha stigmatized one of his comtemporaries, Gosala Maskariputra as a ‘bad man’. Gosala believes in an extreme form of determinism that denies absolutely freewill and all moral responsibility. To him all things are fixed and nothing can be changed. Everything depends on fate, environment and nature. He denies all moral duty and was unrestraint in his personal behaviour. To the Buddha, he is like a fisherman, catching men only to destroy them eventually, and that is not what Buddhism taught us to believe, act and behaves.