Buddha didn't teach “There is no self”?

[django]

...The Buddha did NOT say that “There is no self”. What the Buddha says over and over and over again in the Suttas is that the 5 skandhas are NOT FIT TO BE REGARDED AS YOUR SELF, i.e., your body and it’s activity is NOT WORTHY to be regarded who you really are.
The Buddha even goes to the point of denying that he teaches that “There is no self” because:
i. “There is no self” is the doctrine of annihilation
ii. It will cause immense confusion because people will question whether they really exist or not (as it is doing right now in the Buddhist community)
If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness].
and
“And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: ‘Does the self I used to have now not exist?‘”
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....010.than.html

... So the Buddha’s teaching on anatta – how the Buddha originally taught it over and over again – is NOT “There is no self” (which the Buddha called the teaching of annihilation). Anatta means – don’t mistake your body and it’s mental activity to be your self – these 5 skandhas are not who you really are.

https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress....s-in-buddhism/

I agree with you, django, and I am grateful that this has been brought up because it is mostly misunderstood.

I also understand that the 'no self' refers to the 'small self'; that is the one's ego. When one operates from one's Higher Self or Buddha Nature the ego is absent and the Buddha Wisdom, Love and Compassion are active.

[Bohdiyana]

But then this is right from wikipedia:

Anatta

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings. The Buddhist concept of Anattā or Anātman is one of the fundamental differences between Buddhism and Hinduism, with the latter asserting that Atman (self, soul) exists.

So yea a lot of confusing and contradictory ideas. Someday somebody will come up with a better way of explaining all of this. Religions always stray a long ways away from what the founders were trying to get across. You can find truths expressed in religions, but you have to wade through a lot of non-sense or badly stated or explained stuff.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

But then this is right from wikipedia:

Anatta

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings. The Buddhist concept of Anattā or Anātman is one of the fundamental differences between Buddhism and Hinduism, with the latter asserting that Atman (self, soul) exists.

So yea a lot of confusing and contradictory ideas. Someday somebody will come up with a better way of explaining all of this. Religions always stray a long ways away from what the founders were trying to get across. You can find truths expressed in religions, but you have to wade through a lot of non-sense or badly stated or explained stuff.

I think people find this teaching confusing because they use either no self, or non self. From what I have studied he said ' Not self ' meaning we are not the 5 Skandhas. These are the physical and mental attributes that we think are us, once you understand the Skandhas it makes sense.
He also taught ' True Self ' so if we understand the Skandas we can understand ' True Self ' and then ' Not Self ', it's easier then to see what he actually meant.....

[Bohdiyana]

Originally Posted by sky123

I think people find this teaching confusing because they use either no self, or non self. From what I have studied he said ' Not self ' meaning we are not the 5 Skandhas. These are the physical and mental attributes that we think are us, once you understand the Skandhas it makes sense.
He also taught ' True Self ' so if we understand the Skandas we can understand ' True Self ' and then ' Not Self ', it's easier then to see what he actually meant.....

That's a really good explanation of no self, which is better written as not self. But then what in the heck would you do with this which is widely quoted and understood to be Buddhism?

"there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings"

The Dalai Lama clearly believes in reincarnation as he wrote a long paper on it here:

https://www.dalailama.com/the-dalai-.../reincarnation

So what reincarnates? I think they tend to make up their own name for it (mind stream) because of some complex philosophical explanation or definitions. Nobody agrees what a soul is other than stating it is us, consciousness, our immortal "self" that survives the death of the body. Really that's about it as far as a definition so really there is no reason Buddhism could not accept the word soul. It is Buddhism that limits it to mean this or that so they can have their own word for it. The entire definition of mind stream could be applied to the word soul because no one is really defining what a soul is besides "us" in some general way.

"there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings"

Well changing of course is a part of everything...so take that word out as it is not needed to be stated....


"there is no permanent self, soul or essence in living beings"

Yes that's wholly wrong. But then it is right if you define all those words in very narrow complex ways which is what Buddhism does. Like they don't say self or soul or essence, they say mind stream. But the concepts of mind stream don't contradict a soul concept at all. Really I see only one reason why Buddhism goes out of it's way to deny a soul then makes up their own word for it, it was because so much of Buddhism is about recognizing what is not us, like belief, concepts, and thoughts and the average person applies all of those things to be a part of their soul.

[Jeremy Bong]

I have a different idea about self. They're including of three parts.

1) consciousness.
2) energy field or soul.
3) spirit of our body.

Consciousness is the one that bring you to travel inside your body when you meditate. Consciousness when a person die shrink to the astral playground or astral light to be reincarnation to become the human seed.

Energy field is the energy in your brain it can form an energy you or your soul but it can't go outside your body.

Spirit is the same size as our body so no one can see his own spirit by any means. When OBE happen the spirit go outside your body.

At normal condition, this three you can't go outside your body and only an ascended person can go outside of you.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by django

...The Buddha did NOT say that “There is no self”. What the Buddha says over and over and over again in the Suttas is that the 5 skandhas are NOT FIT TO BE REGARDED AS YOUR SELF, i.e., your body and it’s activity is NOT WORTHY to be regarded who you really are.
The Buddha even goes to the point of denying that he teaches that “There is no self” because:
i. “There is no self” is the doctrine of annihilation
ii. It will cause immense confusion because people will question whether they really exist or not (as it is doing right now in the Buddhist community)
If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness].
and
“And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: ‘Does the self I used to have now not exist?‘”
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....010.than.html

... So the Buddha’s teaching on anatta – how the Buddha originally taught it over and over again – is NOT “There is no self” (which the Buddha called the teaching of annihilation). Anatta means – don’t mistake your body and it’s mental activity to be your self – these 5 skandhas are not who you really are.

In the sutta quoted why did he neither negate nor affirm self?
Because ordinary Vacchagotta the wanderer could not differentiate between alleged truly existent self appearing as innate misperception and self empty of true existence arising only depending on the aggregates.
Just to avoid that ordinary Vacchagotta the wanderer would get confused and draw incorrect conclusions did he neither negate nor affirm self. The only self that ordinary Vacchagotta the wanderer knows is the alleged self that innately appears as if truly existing although a true self does not exist at all. However self empty of true existence arises continually dependent on the aggregates.
And Vacchagotta's misperceived self is the self that everybody experiences who does not perceive its emptiness directly.

Only fools conclude that a self truly exists because he did not negate self when being asked by ordinary Vacchagotta the wanderer.
Only fools conclude that a self is absolutely non-existent because he did not affirm self when being asked by ordinary Vacchagotta the wanderer.
However those who don't perceive the emptiness of self directly necessarily misperceive self as if truly existent and a truly existent self is absolutely non-existent.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

In the sutta quoted why did he neither negate nor affirm self?
Because ordinary Vacchagotta the wanderer could not differentiate between alleged truly existent self appearing as innate misperception and self empty of true existence arising only depending on the aggregates.
Just to avoid that ordinary Vacchagotta the wanderer would get confused and draw incorrect conclusions did he neither negate nor affirm self. The only self that ordinary Vacchagotta the wanderer knows is the alleged self that innately appears as if truly existing although a true self does not exist at all. However self empty of true existence arises continually dependent on the aggregates.
And Vacchagotta's misperceived self is the self that everybody experiences who does not perceive its emptiness directly.

Only fools conclude that a self truly exists because he did not negate self when being asked by ordinary Vacchagotta the wanderer.
Only fools conclude that a self is absolutely non-existent because he did not affirm self when being asked by ordinary Vacchagotta the wanderer.
However those who don't perceive the emptiness of self directly necessarily misperceive self as if truly existent and a truly existent self is absolutely non-existent.

Only the folly tell others that this world is full of fool. It's because that fool sit in the house can't see the outside of the house then he jumps to the assumption that there's no self. Just try to understand that one is at what point or angle or position to tell the truth of life existence.

Ordinary mind is surely can't see what should he see and can't feel what he should feel also. That's slow in thought and wrong way of approach.

Once I sat and my spirit stood up and I used my hand to pinch my spirit skin . It's that part of my body skin pain because I pinched my spirit. This can100% prove to the world that human has a spirit.

I'm a human my soul can go out freely to the outside of my body. It's in energy form so that I can perform anything or do creation outside my body. Like to heal a person thousands of miles away from me.

When we travel in our meditation, only our consciousness is traveling inside our bodies. That doesn't involve our spirit or soul. Soul at this moment is only the energy in our bodies or brain. Consciousness is the senses that can see inside us.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

That's a really good explanation of no self, which is better written as not self. But then what in the heck would you do with this which is widely quoted and understood to be Buddhism?

"there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings"

The Dalai Lama clearly believes in reincarnation as he wrote a long paper on it here:

https://www.dalailama.com/the-dalai-.../reincarnation

So what reincarnates? I think they tend to make up their own name for it (mind stream) because of some complex philosophical explanation or definitions. Nobody agrees what a soul is other than stating it is us, consciousness, our immortal "self" that survives the death of the body. Really that's about it as far as a definition so really there is no reason Buddhism could not accept the word soul. It is Buddhism that limits it to mean this or that so they can have their own word for it. The entire definition of mind stream could be applied to the word soul because no one is really defining what a soul is besides "us" in some general way.

"there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings"

Well changing of course is a part of everything...so take that word out as it is not needed to be stated....


"there is no permanent self, soul or essence in living beings"

Yes that's wholly wrong. But then it is right if you define all those words in very narrow complex ways which is what Buddhism does. Like they don't say self or soul or essence, they say mind stream. But the concepts of mind stream don't contradict a soul concept at all. Really I see only one reason why Buddhism goes out of it's way to deny a soul then makes up their own word for it, it was because so much of Buddhism is about recognizing what is not us, like belief, concepts, and thoughts and the average person applies all of those things to be a part of their soul.

I have noticed that some Buddhist teachers use the word reincarnation when addressing Westerners but usually it's rebirth.
I don't see the word soul being the same as mindstream, soul is unchanging according to Christianity but mindstream is moment to moment continuum.
I like the two candles metaphor ( as it's simple )
One candle is burning towards the end of its life, the other is new and unused, the flame from the old is used to light the new, they continue to be separate candles but the flame of the new came into being from the flame of the old.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by sky123

I like the two candles metaphor ( as it's simple ).
One candle is burning towards the end of its life, the other is new and unused, the flame from the old is used to light the new, they continue to be separate candles but the flame of the new came into being from the flame of the old.

I like the metaphor of material minerals. When the body desintegrates into its mineral components then sooner or later, after years or hundreds of years, those minerals will be re-integrated as the components of new organisms. A new living organism will be reborn on the basis of a former one.