Did the Buddha believe in “something” being “self” beyond simply the aspect of control/power that he...











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












It looks like according to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control. Why did he use the word "self" instead of just "complete control/power" then? It seems unnecessary, or, it seems to imply he thought there was something more than just power/control.



Why did he use the word "self" at all?



One can use the argument "it's just a convention" or "there is an 'empirical self'", but this seems to completely contradict the teaching that one is supposed to regard the body as "not-mine, not myself" -- i.e if there is an "empirical self" but it isn't the body, consciousness, etc., then what is it? The meaning in that context doesn't seem to mean "an empirical self". It's not clear to me what it means.



If the claim of "self" being an illusion is made, one needs to at least know and preferably define what "self" is. Therefore whatever is "self" has to either a) genuinely exist, or, b) the statement has no definite meaning (in which case it seems like confusion or ignorance to me).



For instance, for a), if one sees an illusion of a lake, it requires the knowledge of an actual lake, which requires an actual lake to exist.



It looks like "the illusion of self" might be an illusion itself.



I think the same can be said for "not-self", "non-self" etc.



It looks like:




  1. There really is something, a reality that various people refer to as "self" that I find difficult to see.

  2. I am one of few people or perhaps the only person who can clearly see that any belief and ideas of "self, no-self, not-self etc." are just confused thinking. (In which case I am confused why it looks like the Buddha would have ever taught one to consider the body etc. as "not-self").

  3. There is some other explanation to this that I am currently unaware of.










share|improve this question




























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite












    It looks like according to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control. Why did he use the word "self" instead of just "complete control/power" then? It seems unnecessary, or, it seems to imply he thought there was something more than just power/control.



    Why did he use the word "self" at all?



    One can use the argument "it's just a convention" or "there is an 'empirical self'", but this seems to completely contradict the teaching that one is supposed to regard the body as "not-mine, not myself" -- i.e if there is an "empirical self" but it isn't the body, consciousness, etc., then what is it? The meaning in that context doesn't seem to mean "an empirical self". It's not clear to me what it means.



    If the claim of "self" being an illusion is made, one needs to at least know and preferably define what "self" is. Therefore whatever is "self" has to either a) genuinely exist, or, b) the statement has no definite meaning (in which case it seems like confusion or ignorance to me).



    For instance, for a), if one sees an illusion of a lake, it requires the knowledge of an actual lake, which requires an actual lake to exist.



    It looks like "the illusion of self" might be an illusion itself.



    I think the same can be said for "not-self", "non-self" etc.



    It looks like:




    1. There really is something, a reality that various people refer to as "self" that I find difficult to see.

    2. I am one of few people or perhaps the only person who can clearly see that any belief and ideas of "self, no-self, not-self etc." are just confused thinking. (In which case I am confused why it looks like the Buddha would have ever taught one to consider the body etc. as "not-self").

    3. There is some other explanation to this that I am currently unaware of.










    share|improve this question


























      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite











      It looks like according to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control. Why did he use the word "self" instead of just "complete control/power" then? It seems unnecessary, or, it seems to imply he thought there was something more than just power/control.



      Why did he use the word "self" at all?



      One can use the argument "it's just a convention" or "there is an 'empirical self'", but this seems to completely contradict the teaching that one is supposed to regard the body as "not-mine, not myself" -- i.e if there is an "empirical self" but it isn't the body, consciousness, etc., then what is it? The meaning in that context doesn't seem to mean "an empirical self". It's not clear to me what it means.



      If the claim of "self" being an illusion is made, one needs to at least know and preferably define what "self" is. Therefore whatever is "self" has to either a) genuinely exist, or, b) the statement has no definite meaning (in which case it seems like confusion or ignorance to me).



      For instance, for a), if one sees an illusion of a lake, it requires the knowledge of an actual lake, which requires an actual lake to exist.



      It looks like "the illusion of self" might be an illusion itself.



      I think the same can be said for "not-self", "non-self" etc.



      It looks like:




      1. There really is something, a reality that various people refer to as "self" that I find difficult to see.

      2. I am one of few people or perhaps the only person who can clearly see that any belief and ideas of "self, no-self, not-self etc." are just confused thinking. (In which case I am confused why it looks like the Buddha would have ever taught one to consider the body etc. as "not-self").

      3. There is some other explanation to this that I am currently unaware of.










      share|improve this question















      It looks like according to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control. Why did he use the word "self" instead of just "complete control/power" then? It seems unnecessary, or, it seems to imply he thought there was something more than just power/control.



      Why did he use the word "self" at all?



      One can use the argument "it's just a convention" or "there is an 'empirical self'", but this seems to completely contradict the teaching that one is supposed to regard the body as "not-mine, not myself" -- i.e if there is an "empirical self" but it isn't the body, consciousness, etc., then what is it? The meaning in that context doesn't seem to mean "an empirical self". It's not clear to me what it means.



      If the claim of "self" being an illusion is made, one needs to at least know and preferably define what "self" is. Therefore whatever is "self" has to either a) genuinely exist, or, b) the statement has no definite meaning (in which case it seems like confusion or ignorance to me).



      For instance, for a), if one sees an illusion of a lake, it requires the knowledge of an actual lake, which requires an actual lake to exist.



      It looks like "the illusion of self" might be an illusion itself.



      I think the same can be said for "not-self", "non-self" etc.



      It looks like:




      1. There really is something, a reality that various people refer to as "self" that I find difficult to see.

      2. I am one of few people or perhaps the only person who can clearly see that any belief and ideas of "self, no-self, not-self etc." are just confused thinking. (In which case I am confused why it looks like the Buddha would have ever taught one to consider the body etc. as "not-self").

      3. There is some other explanation to this that I am currently unaware of.







      philosophy sutras self






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 6 hours ago

























      asked 6 hours ago









      Angus

      1077




      1077






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          Option 3) There is something you have not thought of.



          Your claim 'if one sees an illusion of a lake it requires the knowledge of an actual lake which requires an actual lake to exist.' is not true. It's easy to see it as true when you are choosing, as an example, something that is concrete and obviously conventionally true.



          Very often, when people visualize things, either awake or dreaming, it is with the idea that they have a perfect vivid image in their mind of what it is they are thinking of. However, you can test this by asking a group of people to close their eyes and visualize something, then ask them to draw it. You will find that people often draw things very badly even if they thought, a second ago, that they had a picture realistic view in their head. You might be inclined to say that this is due to lack of artistic talent, but I can tell you from experience-- you can get a classroom of artists to draw something sitting on a table in front of them and get a pretty good sketch from each of them, but you'll find MUCH more varying results from asking them to draw from their imagination, even if they all insist that their internal image is photorealistic.



          In reality, people very rarely (if ever) actually have a very detailed image in their mind. What occurs is that they have PART of an image, and the rest of the details are vague. They may know exactly how 3 parts of it look up close, and how the colors should vaguely be, but not how anything is actually supposed to fit together. However, the way the mental image works, it's hard for the mind to actually focus on the parts they don't know and especially hard for the mind to notice that those parts are incorrect. Once you must act based on the information in those parts (via drawing) suddenly it is hard for the mind to guide based on this bad image. Without that act, drawing, it is very difficult to realize what parts of the mental image are disproportioned or incorrect, or even that any of it is.



          That may have seemed like a long digression, because, like the lake, you still are basing the image on something that physically exists.



          But the same thing occurs when you ask people to draw abstract images that they visualize beforehand. When the only goal is to draw an image you have imagined, you still find that you have failed to imagine it to the detail you thought you had. It's less noticeable and, from an art perspective, it's much easier to still produce an art piece that looks very good, despite not being what the artist was visualizing to begin with.



          It is like that for concepts as well. People begin to think of a concept-- say, self-- and they see some very zoomed in details. They learn these details from different people, and when you ask people, "what is the self" they mentally create something like the previously mentioned vague visual image- they might zoom in on details, they may create a vague shape. Much like the abstract visuals people made previously, when they must act on this, they might find that it's impossible and self contradictory. Usually, like the artists, an uninstructed person just patches it up and makes something different as they go.



          The doctrine of not-self is the Buddha taking all those zoomed in details of what people often try to put into the 'self' concept and saying that they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'. He was responding to how other people used words, and he was specifically saying that these patched together collages of details did not work together like they should.






          share|improve this answer

















          • 1




            So what is the "true concept" of "self"?
            – Angus
            6 hours ago






          • 1




            There is not a "true concept" of "self"-- the details people try to put into it don't work with it the way they expect it to. They have a vague and internally inconsistent idea of it, but they think it is a true concept or that it is at least something that has a true concept, even if they haven't yet understood it. The Buddha teaches otherwise.
            – Jones
            5 hours ago










          • If I changed "they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'" to "they don't fit together into some 'true' concept of 'self" would that be clearer?
            – Jones
            5 hours ago










          • It seems like that is clearer. Why does it look like the Buddha said to regard things as "not-myself" though?
            – Angus
            5 hours ago










          • My understanding has been that he saw people taking these things as those details and trying to fit them into this 'collage' which wouldn't work. Then people would try to live their lives by following this 'collage' and they would stumble and experience all the things related to dependent origination. To stop trying to put these details together is a necessary but not sufficient step towards getting enlightened. To keep this collage of meshed together beliefs is to try to live your life by a map which is incorrect. Does that address your question, or have I missed what you meant?
            – Jones
            5 hours ago


















          up vote
          1
          down vote














          It looks like according to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control.




          In my reading, the Buddha here was commenting on the subject of "self" rather than the subject of "control". He was not saying "control" is "self". He was saying if there was a "real self", this self could control itself.




          If the claim of "self" being an illusion is made, one needs to at least know and preferably define **what "self" is.**




          "Self" is defined in SN 22.81 is an "assumption", "mental formation" & "ignorant misunderstanding".




          There is some other explanation to this that I am currently unaware of.




          "Self" is an underlying tendency (anusaya). Using scientific terminology, it can be said "self" is a survival instinct (i.e., a form of craving called craving to be). When the mind becomes anxious or lustful, these energies of anxiety & lust create ideas or thoughts in the mind of 'self' or 'identity'.



          Thus Buddha taught the arising of 'self-view' is the 'arising of suffering' (SN 12.15; SN 5.10).




          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.



          SN 5.10







          share|improve this answer























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "565"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30180%2fdid-the-buddha-believe-in-something-being-self-beyond-simply-the-aspect-of-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Option 3) There is something you have not thought of.



            Your claim 'if one sees an illusion of a lake it requires the knowledge of an actual lake which requires an actual lake to exist.' is not true. It's easy to see it as true when you are choosing, as an example, something that is concrete and obviously conventionally true.



            Very often, when people visualize things, either awake or dreaming, it is with the idea that they have a perfect vivid image in their mind of what it is they are thinking of. However, you can test this by asking a group of people to close their eyes and visualize something, then ask them to draw it. You will find that people often draw things very badly even if they thought, a second ago, that they had a picture realistic view in their head. You might be inclined to say that this is due to lack of artistic talent, but I can tell you from experience-- you can get a classroom of artists to draw something sitting on a table in front of them and get a pretty good sketch from each of them, but you'll find MUCH more varying results from asking them to draw from their imagination, even if they all insist that their internal image is photorealistic.



            In reality, people very rarely (if ever) actually have a very detailed image in their mind. What occurs is that they have PART of an image, and the rest of the details are vague. They may know exactly how 3 parts of it look up close, and how the colors should vaguely be, but not how anything is actually supposed to fit together. However, the way the mental image works, it's hard for the mind to actually focus on the parts they don't know and especially hard for the mind to notice that those parts are incorrect. Once you must act based on the information in those parts (via drawing) suddenly it is hard for the mind to guide based on this bad image. Without that act, drawing, it is very difficult to realize what parts of the mental image are disproportioned or incorrect, or even that any of it is.



            That may have seemed like a long digression, because, like the lake, you still are basing the image on something that physically exists.



            But the same thing occurs when you ask people to draw abstract images that they visualize beforehand. When the only goal is to draw an image you have imagined, you still find that you have failed to imagine it to the detail you thought you had. It's less noticeable and, from an art perspective, it's much easier to still produce an art piece that looks very good, despite not being what the artist was visualizing to begin with.



            It is like that for concepts as well. People begin to think of a concept-- say, self-- and they see some very zoomed in details. They learn these details from different people, and when you ask people, "what is the self" they mentally create something like the previously mentioned vague visual image- they might zoom in on details, they may create a vague shape. Much like the abstract visuals people made previously, when they must act on this, they might find that it's impossible and self contradictory. Usually, like the artists, an uninstructed person just patches it up and makes something different as they go.



            The doctrine of not-self is the Buddha taking all those zoomed in details of what people often try to put into the 'self' concept and saying that they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'. He was responding to how other people used words, and he was specifically saying that these patched together collages of details did not work together like they should.






            share|improve this answer

















            • 1




              So what is the "true concept" of "self"?
              – Angus
              6 hours ago






            • 1




              There is not a "true concept" of "self"-- the details people try to put into it don't work with it the way they expect it to. They have a vague and internally inconsistent idea of it, but they think it is a true concept or that it is at least something that has a true concept, even if they haven't yet understood it. The Buddha teaches otherwise.
              – Jones
              5 hours ago










            • If I changed "they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'" to "they don't fit together into some 'true' concept of 'self" would that be clearer?
              – Jones
              5 hours ago










            • It seems like that is clearer. Why does it look like the Buddha said to regard things as "not-myself" though?
              – Angus
              5 hours ago










            • My understanding has been that he saw people taking these things as those details and trying to fit them into this 'collage' which wouldn't work. Then people would try to live their lives by following this 'collage' and they would stumble and experience all the things related to dependent origination. To stop trying to put these details together is a necessary but not sufficient step towards getting enlightened. To keep this collage of meshed together beliefs is to try to live your life by a map which is incorrect. Does that address your question, or have I missed what you meant?
              – Jones
              5 hours ago















            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Option 3) There is something you have not thought of.



            Your claim 'if one sees an illusion of a lake it requires the knowledge of an actual lake which requires an actual lake to exist.' is not true. It's easy to see it as true when you are choosing, as an example, something that is concrete and obviously conventionally true.



            Very often, when people visualize things, either awake or dreaming, it is with the idea that they have a perfect vivid image in their mind of what it is they are thinking of. However, you can test this by asking a group of people to close their eyes and visualize something, then ask them to draw it. You will find that people often draw things very badly even if they thought, a second ago, that they had a picture realistic view in their head. You might be inclined to say that this is due to lack of artistic talent, but I can tell you from experience-- you can get a classroom of artists to draw something sitting on a table in front of them and get a pretty good sketch from each of them, but you'll find MUCH more varying results from asking them to draw from their imagination, even if they all insist that their internal image is photorealistic.



            In reality, people very rarely (if ever) actually have a very detailed image in their mind. What occurs is that they have PART of an image, and the rest of the details are vague. They may know exactly how 3 parts of it look up close, and how the colors should vaguely be, but not how anything is actually supposed to fit together. However, the way the mental image works, it's hard for the mind to actually focus on the parts they don't know and especially hard for the mind to notice that those parts are incorrect. Once you must act based on the information in those parts (via drawing) suddenly it is hard for the mind to guide based on this bad image. Without that act, drawing, it is very difficult to realize what parts of the mental image are disproportioned or incorrect, or even that any of it is.



            That may have seemed like a long digression, because, like the lake, you still are basing the image on something that physically exists.



            But the same thing occurs when you ask people to draw abstract images that they visualize beforehand. When the only goal is to draw an image you have imagined, you still find that you have failed to imagine it to the detail you thought you had. It's less noticeable and, from an art perspective, it's much easier to still produce an art piece that looks very good, despite not being what the artist was visualizing to begin with.



            It is like that for concepts as well. People begin to think of a concept-- say, self-- and they see some very zoomed in details. They learn these details from different people, and when you ask people, "what is the self" they mentally create something like the previously mentioned vague visual image- they might zoom in on details, they may create a vague shape. Much like the abstract visuals people made previously, when they must act on this, they might find that it's impossible and self contradictory. Usually, like the artists, an uninstructed person just patches it up and makes something different as they go.



            The doctrine of not-self is the Buddha taking all those zoomed in details of what people often try to put into the 'self' concept and saying that they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'. He was responding to how other people used words, and he was specifically saying that these patched together collages of details did not work together like they should.






            share|improve this answer

















            • 1




              So what is the "true concept" of "self"?
              – Angus
              6 hours ago






            • 1




              There is not a "true concept" of "self"-- the details people try to put into it don't work with it the way they expect it to. They have a vague and internally inconsistent idea of it, but they think it is a true concept or that it is at least something that has a true concept, even if they haven't yet understood it. The Buddha teaches otherwise.
              – Jones
              5 hours ago










            • If I changed "they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'" to "they don't fit together into some 'true' concept of 'self" would that be clearer?
              – Jones
              5 hours ago










            • It seems like that is clearer. Why does it look like the Buddha said to regard things as "not-myself" though?
              – Angus
              5 hours ago










            • My understanding has been that he saw people taking these things as those details and trying to fit them into this 'collage' which wouldn't work. Then people would try to live their lives by following this 'collage' and they would stumble and experience all the things related to dependent origination. To stop trying to put these details together is a necessary but not sufficient step towards getting enlightened. To keep this collage of meshed together beliefs is to try to live your life by a map which is incorrect. Does that address your question, or have I missed what you meant?
              – Jones
              5 hours ago













            up vote
            2
            down vote










            up vote
            2
            down vote









            Option 3) There is something you have not thought of.



            Your claim 'if one sees an illusion of a lake it requires the knowledge of an actual lake which requires an actual lake to exist.' is not true. It's easy to see it as true when you are choosing, as an example, something that is concrete and obviously conventionally true.



            Very often, when people visualize things, either awake or dreaming, it is with the idea that they have a perfect vivid image in their mind of what it is they are thinking of. However, you can test this by asking a group of people to close their eyes and visualize something, then ask them to draw it. You will find that people often draw things very badly even if they thought, a second ago, that they had a picture realistic view in their head. You might be inclined to say that this is due to lack of artistic talent, but I can tell you from experience-- you can get a classroom of artists to draw something sitting on a table in front of them and get a pretty good sketch from each of them, but you'll find MUCH more varying results from asking them to draw from their imagination, even if they all insist that their internal image is photorealistic.



            In reality, people very rarely (if ever) actually have a very detailed image in their mind. What occurs is that they have PART of an image, and the rest of the details are vague. They may know exactly how 3 parts of it look up close, and how the colors should vaguely be, but not how anything is actually supposed to fit together. However, the way the mental image works, it's hard for the mind to actually focus on the parts they don't know and especially hard for the mind to notice that those parts are incorrect. Once you must act based on the information in those parts (via drawing) suddenly it is hard for the mind to guide based on this bad image. Without that act, drawing, it is very difficult to realize what parts of the mental image are disproportioned or incorrect, or even that any of it is.



            That may have seemed like a long digression, because, like the lake, you still are basing the image on something that physically exists.



            But the same thing occurs when you ask people to draw abstract images that they visualize beforehand. When the only goal is to draw an image you have imagined, you still find that you have failed to imagine it to the detail you thought you had. It's less noticeable and, from an art perspective, it's much easier to still produce an art piece that looks very good, despite not being what the artist was visualizing to begin with.



            It is like that for concepts as well. People begin to think of a concept-- say, self-- and they see some very zoomed in details. They learn these details from different people, and when you ask people, "what is the self" they mentally create something like the previously mentioned vague visual image- they might zoom in on details, they may create a vague shape. Much like the abstract visuals people made previously, when they must act on this, they might find that it's impossible and self contradictory. Usually, like the artists, an uninstructed person just patches it up and makes something different as they go.



            The doctrine of not-self is the Buddha taking all those zoomed in details of what people often try to put into the 'self' concept and saying that they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'. He was responding to how other people used words, and he was specifically saying that these patched together collages of details did not work together like they should.






            share|improve this answer












            Option 3) There is something you have not thought of.



            Your claim 'if one sees an illusion of a lake it requires the knowledge of an actual lake which requires an actual lake to exist.' is not true. It's easy to see it as true when you are choosing, as an example, something that is concrete and obviously conventionally true.



            Very often, when people visualize things, either awake or dreaming, it is with the idea that they have a perfect vivid image in their mind of what it is they are thinking of. However, you can test this by asking a group of people to close their eyes and visualize something, then ask them to draw it. You will find that people often draw things very badly even if they thought, a second ago, that they had a picture realistic view in their head. You might be inclined to say that this is due to lack of artistic talent, but I can tell you from experience-- you can get a classroom of artists to draw something sitting on a table in front of them and get a pretty good sketch from each of them, but you'll find MUCH more varying results from asking them to draw from their imagination, even if they all insist that their internal image is photorealistic.



            In reality, people very rarely (if ever) actually have a very detailed image in their mind. What occurs is that they have PART of an image, and the rest of the details are vague. They may know exactly how 3 parts of it look up close, and how the colors should vaguely be, but not how anything is actually supposed to fit together. However, the way the mental image works, it's hard for the mind to actually focus on the parts they don't know and especially hard for the mind to notice that those parts are incorrect. Once you must act based on the information in those parts (via drawing) suddenly it is hard for the mind to guide based on this bad image. Without that act, drawing, it is very difficult to realize what parts of the mental image are disproportioned or incorrect, or even that any of it is.



            That may have seemed like a long digression, because, like the lake, you still are basing the image on something that physically exists.



            But the same thing occurs when you ask people to draw abstract images that they visualize beforehand. When the only goal is to draw an image you have imagined, you still find that you have failed to imagine it to the detail you thought you had. It's less noticeable and, from an art perspective, it's much easier to still produce an art piece that looks very good, despite not being what the artist was visualizing to begin with.



            It is like that for concepts as well. People begin to think of a concept-- say, self-- and they see some very zoomed in details. They learn these details from different people, and when you ask people, "what is the self" they mentally create something like the previously mentioned vague visual image- they might zoom in on details, they may create a vague shape. Much like the abstract visuals people made previously, when they must act on this, they might find that it's impossible and self contradictory. Usually, like the artists, an uninstructed person just patches it up and makes something different as they go.



            The doctrine of not-self is the Buddha taking all those zoomed in details of what people often try to put into the 'self' concept and saying that they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'. He was responding to how other people used words, and he was specifically saying that these patched together collages of details did not work together like they should.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 6 hours ago









            Jones

            689




            689








            • 1




              So what is the "true concept" of "self"?
              – Angus
              6 hours ago






            • 1




              There is not a "true concept" of "self"-- the details people try to put into it don't work with it the way they expect it to. They have a vague and internally inconsistent idea of it, but they think it is a true concept or that it is at least something that has a true concept, even if they haven't yet understood it. The Buddha teaches otherwise.
              – Jones
              5 hours ago










            • If I changed "they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'" to "they don't fit together into some 'true' concept of 'self" would that be clearer?
              – Jones
              5 hours ago










            • It seems like that is clearer. Why does it look like the Buddha said to regard things as "not-myself" though?
              – Angus
              5 hours ago










            • My understanding has been that he saw people taking these things as those details and trying to fit them into this 'collage' which wouldn't work. Then people would try to live their lives by following this 'collage' and they would stumble and experience all the things related to dependent origination. To stop trying to put these details together is a necessary but not sufficient step towards getting enlightened. To keep this collage of meshed together beliefs is to try to live your life by a map which is incorrect. Does that address your question, or have I missed what you meant?
              – Jones
              5 hours ago














            • 1




              So what is the "true concept" of "self"?
              – Angus
              6 hours ago






            • 1




              There is not a "true concept" of "self"-- the details people try to put into it don't work with it the way they expect it to. They have a vague and internally inconsistent idea of it, but they think it is a true concept or that it is at least something that has a true concept, even if they haven't yet understood it. The Buddha teaches otherwise.
              – Jones
              5 hours ago










            • If I changed "they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'" to "they don't fit together into some 'true' concept of 'self" would that be clearer?
              – Jones
              5 hours ago










            • It seems like that is clearer. Why does it look like the Buddha said to regard things as "not-myself" though?
              – Angus
              5 hours ago










            • My understanding has been that he saw people taking these things as those details and trying to fit them into this 'collage' which wouldn't work. Then people would try to live their lives by following this 'collage' and they would stumble and experience all the things related to dependent origination. To stop trying to put these details together is a necessary but not sufficient step towards getting enlightened. To keep this collage of meshed together beliefs is to try to live your life by a map which is incorrect. Does that address your question, or have I missed what you meant?
              – Jones
              5 hours ago








            1




            1




            So what is the "true concept" of "self"?
            – Angus
            6 hours ago




            So what is the "true concept" of "self"?
            – Angus
            6 hours ago




            1




            1




            There is not a "true concept" of "self"-- the details people try to put into it don't work with it the way they expect it to. They have a vague and internally inconsistent idea of it, but they think it is a true concept or that it is at least something that has a true concept, even if they haven't yet understood it. The Buddha teaches otherwise.
            – Jones
            5 hours ago




            There is not a "true concept" of "self"-- the details people try to put into it don't work with it the way they expect it to. They have a vague and internally inconsistent idea of it, but they think it is a true concept or that it is at least something that has a true concept, even if they haven't yet understood it. The Buddha teaches otherwise.
            – Jones
            5 hours ago












            If I changed "they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'" to "they don't fit together into some 'true' concept of 'self" would that be clearer?
            – Jones
            5 hours ago




            If I changed "they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'" to "they don't fit together into some 'true' concept of 'self" would that be clearer?
            – Jones
            5 hours ago












            It seems like that is clearer. Why does it look like the Buddha said to regard things as "not-myself" though?
            – Angus
            5 hours ago




            It seems like that is clearer. Why does it look like the Buddha said to regard things as "not-myself" though?
            – Angus
            5 hours ago












            My understanding has been that he saw people taking these things as those details and trying to fit them into this 'collage' which wouldn't work. Then people would try to live their lives by following this 'collage' and they would stumble and experience all the things related to dependent origination. To stop trying to put these details together is a necessary but not sufficient step towards getting enlightened. To keep this collage of meshed together beliefs is to try to live your life by a map which is incorrect. Does that address your question, or have I missed what you meant?
            – Jones
            5 hours ago




            My understanding has been that he saw people taking these things as those details and trying to fit them into this 'collage' which wouldn't work. Then people would try to live their lives by following this 'collage' and they would stumble and experience all the things related to dependent origination. To stop trying to put these details together is a necessary but not sufficient step towards getting enlightened. To keep this collage of meshed together beliefs is to try to live your life by a map which is incorrect. Does that address your question, or have I missed what you meant?
            – Jones
            5 hours ago










            up vote
            1
            down vote














            It looks like according to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control.




            In my reading, the Buddha here was commenting on the subject of "self" rather than the subject of "control". He was not saying "control" is "self". He was saying if there was a "real self", this self could control itself.




            If the claim of "self" being an illusion is made, one needs to at least know and preferably define **what "self" is.**




            "Self" is defined in SN 22.81 is an "assumption", "mental formation" & "ignorant misunderstanding".




            There is some other explanation to this that I am currently unaware of.




            "Self" is an underlying tendency (anusaya). Using scientific terminology, it can be said "self" is a survival instinct (i.e., a form of craving called craving to be). When the mind becomes anxious or lustful, these energies of anxiety & lust create ideas or thoughts in the mind of 'self' or 'identity'.



            Thus Buddha taught the arising of 'self-view' is the 'arising of suffering' (SN 12.15; SN 5.10).




            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.



            SN 5.10







            share|improve this answer



























              up vote
              1
              down vote














              It looks like according to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control.




              In my reading, the Buddha here was commenting on the subject of "self" rather than the subject of "control". He was not saying "control" is "self". He was saying if there was a "real self", this self could control itself.




              If the claim of "self" being an illusion is made, one needs to at least know and preferably define **what "self" is.**




              "Self" is defined in SN 22.81 is an "assumption", "mental formation" & "ignorant misunderstanding".




              There is some other explanation to this that I am currently unaware of.




              "Self" is an underlying tendency (anusaya). Using scientific terminology, it can be said "self" is a survival instinct (i.e., a form of craving called craving to be). When the mind becomes anxious or lustful, these energies of anxiety & lust create ideas or thoughts in the mind of 'self' or 'identity'.



              Thus Buddha taught the arising of 'self-view' is the 'arising of suffering' (SN 12.15; SN 5.10).




              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.



              SN 5.10







              share|improve this answer

























                up vote
                1
                down vote










                up vote
                1
                down vote










                It looks like according to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control.




                In my reading, the Buddha here was commenting on the subject of "self" rather than the subject of "control". He was not saying "control" is "self". He was saying if there was a "real self", this self could control itself.




                If the claim of "self" being an illusion is made, one needs to at least know and preferably define **what "self" is.**




                "Self" is defined in SN 22.81 is an "assumption", "mental formation" & "ignorant misunderstanding".




                There is some other explanation to this that I am currently unaware of.




                "Self" is an underlying tendency (anusaya). Using scientific terminology, it can be said "self" is a survival instinct (i.e., a form of craving called craving to be). When the mind becomes anxious or lustful, these energies of anxiety & lust create ideas or thoughts in the mind of 'self' or 'identity'.



                Thus Buddha taught the arising of 'self-view' is the 'arising of suffering' (SN 12.15; SN 5.10).




                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.



                SN 5.10







                share|improve this answer















                It looks like according to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control.




                In my reading, the Buddha here was commenting on the subject of "self" rather than the subject of "control". He was not saying "control" is "self". He was saying if there was a "real self", this self could control itself.




                If the claim of "self" being an illusion is made, one needs to at least know and preferably define **what "self" is.**




                "Self" is defined in SN 22.81 is an "assumption", "mental formation" & "ignorant misunderstanding".




                There is some other explanation to this that I am currently unaware of.




                "Self" is an underlying tendency (anusaya). Using scientific terminology, it can be said "self" is a survival instinct (i.e., a form of craving called craving to be). When the mind becomes anxious or lustful, these energies of anxiety & lust create ideas or thoughts in the mind of 'self' or 'identity'.



                Thus Buddha taught the arising of 'self-view' is the 'arising of suffering' (SN 12.15; SN 5.10).




                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.



                SN 5.10








                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 2 hours ago

























                answered 2 hours ago









                Dhammadhatu

                24k11043




                24k11043






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Buddhism Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30180%2fdid-the-buddha-believe-in-something-being-self-beyond-simply-the-aspect-of-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

                    How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

                    TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'