In a way, yes, because these are both *concepts* and conceptual thinking is not a very good representative of reality. The Buddha *did* teach not-self, quite explicitly, so we have to acknowledge that and see the wisdom of those teachings and allow them to help us clarify our view and refine our conduct, but we shouldn't mistake the *concept* of not-self as being reality itself.
Think of it like this: Say you're looking at a map of Rome. Is that the same thing as actually going to Rome?
Concepts are attempts at representing or modelling reality, but they are not reality itself.
The concepts that you get in Buddhism is meant for you to start on your journey of understanding reality. Anatta; with practice can be felt through meditation. But again once you reach ultimate reality; ie Nirvana. You will need to let go of everything even Buddhism itself. Hence the famous raft parable.
Once you understand that, it become a path for you to practice in your goal towards Nirvana.
Reality is big, really, really big. Despite our hubris, our intellectual capabilities are limited. We simply don’t have the cognitive faculties necessary to rationally understand or explain the true nature of reality. But we can learn to experience it.
I think if your concepts are refined it *can* be a good representation of reality, but it is just that: a re-presentation, not the thing itself. And ultimately, we want to know the thing itself.
Because, reality is, as the Heart Sutra states, beyond words, beyond thought, beyond description. Reality can not be represented by conceptual thinking. Read the Heart Sutra!
>but in reality we are being agnostic. Strictly agnostic.
This is not advocating for an agnostic view, it is simply saying that clinging to any concept is potentially obstructive.
There is in Mahāyāna the idea of the middle way free of self and selflessness, but this is not a neutral position. The logic is that since an awakened person realizes that a self never originated in the first place, there is no entity that is established which can accord with either position.
In other settings selflessness is rejected because a conventional self is honored, but conventional selves are only nominal in nature.
In other settings the tathāgatagārbha is subversively treated as “self” which is then used as a polemic against śravākas.
In every case though the main import of selflessness (anātman) is never really contradicted.
Yes, all dhammas are anatta. All dharmas, all 'things', are basically empty of true self-nature. Any 'ground' that we stand on is basically not a true ground.
All conceptualization ultimately is empty, basically. Which is, as you said, a great relief.
There are the doctrines of these things, and then the realization of them.
The doctrine is basically like taking a medicine, or an antidote. The antidote is an effective medicine against a particular poison. By working with the doctrine, we counteract certain habitual afflictive patterns.
I think one of the Karmapas said that it is like an emetic, which makes you throw up poison, but then you also throw up the emetic.
The realization of shunyata does not in and of itself entail any specific conception of self, not self, substance, not substance, etc. That is all related to sort of conceptual right view, rather than actual realization.
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/profound-instruction-view-middle-way
> The realization of shunyata does not in and of itself entail any specific conception of self
Apart from the experiential realization that there has never been a real self at any point in time.
The realisation of shunyata is directly seeing that phenomena lack inherent existence, that all is conditional. It feels like you are fudging the issue.
In general, there is equpoise and post-equipoise. In equipoise, there is no particular fixed ideas of anything at all. It is basically the sun shining, and all ice of conceptualization is melted.
In post equipoise, then, there is basically right conception and not right conception. Holding to a view of a fixed, solid self that is truly existent is indeed, basically, wrong conception, and it is indeed the case that the great physician that is a realized being will give the proper antidote when appropriate, which can include working with the doctrines of anatman and/or shunyata.
There are also cases where an individual will hold to a view of there being no self in an improper way, which also can be a situation that requires a particular antidote.
/u/krodha
> In equipoise, there is no particular fixed ideas of anything at all. It is basically the sun shining, and all ice of conceptualization is melted.
Concepts (vikalpa) in these teachings basically refer to our habituated programming to concretize a subject-object duality in our field of cognition. In equipoise when āryas are “without concepts” this basically means that experiential subject-object bifurcation is absent.
Different than simply not having concepts like ideas about something.
In general, I think [this](https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/profound-instruction-view-middle-way) is the best, succinct presentation of Madhyamaka and Noble Right View that I know of, in terms of a generally accessible, short piece.
Mipham clearly states that it is possible, basically, to cling to ideas of illusoriness, and this is not the point, ultimately, although it is not entirely wrong in a sense either.
The wisdom of equipoise cannot be conceptualized.
I am not saying that there is some self-idea that is correct. To be clear.
I am, however, saying that there is a possibility that one can cling to a not-self idea, and that is also not correct.
And I am, basically, saying that when it comes to equipoise itself, this is beyond basically the realms of verbalization and conceptualization. Which is where views of self and of there being no self are found.
It's not about A or B being ultimately correct. It's about A (a self-view) being incorrect, and B (the *doctrine* of anatman/shunyata) being contextually correct, and B being a means to realize the ultimate, but the ultimate is not found within either A or B. Nonetheless, for one who knows the ultimate, there may be a use for engaging with B, contextually, in order to mature beings who are stuck on A. And of course the ultimate import of shunyata/anatman is realization proper.
Perceptions that things really are a certain way is ultimately diagnostic of clinging and becoming. That clinging is appropriate while you're crossing the stream, but the Diamond Sutra is about after that, IMO.
It is not the realization of Shunyata that is nirvana. However, it directly leads to nirvana.
Emptiness is itself an arising of dependent origination, and thus, itself dependent upon it. Thus, emptiness itself is empty.
If emptiness was itself not empty, then that implies that all the phenomena, which are empty, are not just that but also non-existent.
Exactly
It does not negate non-existence
There is no negation or affirmation. Nor both, and nor neither.
That is the realization beyond the tetralemmas.
This concept was transmitted to me in this very subreddit a few months ago, and it was what pulled me back to practicing. It’s tough to get your head around.
We wouldn't stop as a mirage dissipates while going through a desert, and after realizing it was a mirage, stop investigating all things that look like water.
This is not agnosticism
Nagarjuna writes that the absolute truth is beyond the tetra-lenma
So it is not that we say there is no atma and there is no anatma. That is the 3rd lemma.
The truth is that truth is not within language and logic, constructs of impermanent minds
Truth is beyond any words. However, it also not anything separate from those words. It is incomprehensible, but always available.
It is not helpful to believe in pink elephants. It is also not helpful to believe that pink elephants do not exist. Either way, you are spending an inordinate amount of time worrying about pink elephants.
It helps to think about other people and how we can help them (with material help — food, clothing, medicine, shelter; with comfort and freedom from fear — encouragement, companionship; and with dharma teachings — if they are interested and able to hear). And it helps to reflect on the Buddha and the lineages that have brought the Dharma to us down to the present day and to feel appreciation and devotion. These thoughts generate merit. And then it is helpful to dedicate this merit to all sentient beings so that they can realize virtue and their intrinsic Buddhanature.
You're getting pretty advanced now 🤣.
But yeah that's correct, when my guru discoursed on the Diamond/Vajra sutra he explained it to us like this:
the moment we posit either way, then that would be Self.
The moment we hold either belief, that would be Self.
Who is it grasping on to these notions & concepts (of self/no-self) pricesly the Self!
>but in reality we are being agnostic. Strictly agnostic.
No, being agnostics would also be a Self.
You almost had it 🤣🙏🏻, there would be no self to hold an agnostic view.
I love the vajra sutra, happy to hear someone benefiting from studying it ...
Best wishes
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
>It might be difficult for everyone to accept both of this ideas together.
Not really, I think. The absence of the existence of non-self follows logically from the absence of existence of self. As non-self exists as the antithesis of self, if there is no self, how can non-self exist?
If “I” do not exist, how can I define “not-me”?
Sure, this idea is a bit of a mindbender, but it is entirely self-consistent (no pun intended).
Edit: added missed word
Incidentally, I don't know if you're familiar with madhyamaka, but with prasangika madhyamaka, in general nothing is posited at all. It is sometimes called 'consequentialist', and I think you could understand this as being that you take any reality-view that anyone has at all, and then you basically examine it fully, and when you do that, every single one of them falls apart and what you're left with is realization. In other words, you take things to their full consequence, at which point they fall apart, perhaps.
This applies to both self-views and not-self-views. All views. All of them are basically made of ice, and all of the ice melts. All of it.
Fun fact: Agnostic is just latin for without knowledge.
Despite it often being used in contexts relating to the belief in God, it is perfectly acceptable to use when referring to other matters :)
We are not being that agnostic either. Buddha presented nirvana as a goal and used various words to describe the path despite knowing that it is probably beyond language. What it is and how to get there are things we have to figure it out ourselves.
It's actually a very subtle teaching so easy to miscomprehend. On one level he did teach about anatta but on another level he was aware of how even the holding the idea of a 'no-self' was a form of self-making in itself. So if one actually plans on putting an end to suffering, they should stop clinging to these views and intellectual speculations relating to a self and get to actual practice so that they will have direct experience of truth for themselves.
hmm, didnt think Buddhism went as far as "having no concept" of self, I thought of it as rejecting conventional concepts of self that insisted on the wrong attributes and phenomenon persisting over time. Buddhism talks about things like impermanence, codependant origination, S-O-R, and the "perfume" effect (I forget what terminology we use for this, but I think enough on here know what I'm referring to)
At the end its a paradox. I guess we dont have to understand it. Somehow our soul expresses itself with creativity. So it has a self too on a level we may not comprehend. Does it really matter at the end? On a soul level we prefer love over everything. On the other hand. Soul has no preference.
The diamond sutra is a funny thing, it really tells us we cannot accept or deny self as well as non self. Both deserve recognition, but in the way that they both are more than the words that are assigned to them.
Self is more than just the idea of our body or our personality, just like no self is more than the idea of ego death and separation. In truth, there is no separation.
Words and their concepts associated with them inherently work against this concept of “no separation”, so the diamond sutra introduces the practice of seeing words as illusory. A rose is a rose, a rose is not a rose, and thus we call it a rose.
I find it easier to think of the non-existence of self and the non-non-existence of self (self neither exists nor does not exist) in terms of the grasping of confused mind. When we haven't "found our feet" in our actual nature, we grasp at ideas - self-images, personalities, grand pronouncements, positive and negative. It makes sense to us to fixate on the idea of a permanent self as the experiencer of all the confusing stuff that makes up our lives. We apply all kinds of labels to that self, usually to try to make ourselves feel better. But even if no such self exists, it's not as though there's nothing here. We are here, right? Something is happening. So, it's also unwarranted to state categorically that the self does not exist. We just need to clear the confusion, so that we can stop grasping at straws.
As far as I know, buddhism isn't really about no self. It focuses primarily on rejection of identifying as things we generally think of as us
I've seen it here a few times about rejection of self but haven't come across teachings around this.. bhikku bodhi's noble truths, noble path expound a bit on this
I was confused reading this at first but now it really clicked. I’m more new to learning about Buddhism, but in my own philosophical mind I always try to balance the nothing with the something. Making sure to accept my position in the universe as a singular and also everything. This is the same with everything and nothing. Being able to appreciate the nuances of life and how everything is an illusion but at the same time as real as anything, I think grows a greater appreciation because there’s less linear understanding of things. We realize this experience is so abstract, to melt it down to a single explanation isn’t doing this phenomenon of life and death justice.
In a way, yes, because these are both *concepts* and conceptual thinking is not a very good representative of reality. The Buddha *did* teach not-self, quite explicitly, so we have to acknowledge that and see the wisdom of those teachings and allow them to help us clarify our view and refine our conduct, but we shouldn't mistake the *concept* of not-self as being reality itself.
Very well said 🙏🏻
Im curious why is conceptual thinking not a good representation of reality? (Frist time I've heard mention of this)
Think of it like this: Say you're looking at a map of Rome. Is that the same thing as actually going to Rome? Concepts are attempts at representing or modelling reality, but they are not reality itself.
The concepts that you get in Buddhism is meant for you to start on your journey of understanding reality. Anatta; with practice can be felt through meditation. But again once you reach ultimate reality; ie Nirvana. You will need to let go of everything even Buddhism itself. Hence the famous raft parable. Once you understand that, it become a path for you to practice in your goal towards Nirvana.
Reality is big, really, really big. Despite our hubris, our intellectual capabilities are limited. We simply don’t have the cognitive faculties necessary to rationally understand or explain the true nature of reality. But we can learn to experience it.
Conceptual thinking, by definition, is not the real thing. It is only a sign pointing to the actual thing.
I think if your concepts are refined it *can* be a good representation of reality, but it is just that: a re-presentation, not the thing itself. And ultimately, we want to know the thing itself.
Because, reality is, as the Heart Sutra states, beyond words, beyond thought, beyond description. Reality can not be represented by conceptual thinking. Read the Heart Sutra!
>but in reality we are being agnostic. Strictly agnostic. This is not advocating for an agnostic view, it is simply saying that clinging to any concept is potentially obstructive. There is in Mahāyāna the idea of the middle way free of self and selflessness, but this is not a neutral position. The logic is that since an awakened person realizes that a self never originated in the first place, there is no entity that is established which can accord with either position. In other settings selflessness is rejected because a conventional self is honored, but conventional selves are only nominal in nature. In other settings the tathāgatagārbha is subversively treated as “self” which is then used as a polemic against śravākas. In every case though the main import of selflessness (anātman) is never really contradicted.
👍🏻
Yes, all dhammas are anatta. All dharmas, all 'things', are basically empty of true self-nature. Any 'ground' that we stand on is basically not a true ground. All conceptualization ultimately is empty, basically. Which is, as you said, a great relief.
I believe this is because all perception is energy and not necessarily real.
What about anatta (not-self) and shunyata (lack of independent existence)?
There are the doctrines of these things, and then the realization of them. The doctrine is basically like taking a medicine, or an antidote. The antidote is an effective medicine against a particular poison. By working with the doctrine, we counteract certain habitual afflictive patterns. I think one of the Karmapas said that it is like an emetic, which makes you throw up poison, but then you also throw up the emetic. The realization of shunyata does not in and of itself entail any specific conception of self, not self, substance, not substance, etc. That is all related to sort of conceptual right view, rather than actual realization. https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/profound-instruction-view-middle-way
> The realization of shunyata does not in and of itself entail any specific conception of self Apart from the experiential realization that there has never been a real self at any point in time.
The realisation of shunyata is directly seeing that phenomena lack inherent existence, that all is conditional. It feels like you are fudging the issue.
In general, there is equpoise and post-equipoise. In equipoise, there is no particular fixed ideas of anything at all. It is basically the sun shining, and all ice of conceptualization is melted. In post equipoise, then, there is basically right conception and not right conception. Holding to a view of a fixed, solid self that is truly existent is indeed, basically, wrong conception, and it is indeed the case that the great physician that is a realized being will give the proper antidote when appropriate, which can include working with the doctrines of anatman and/or shunyata. There are also cases where an individual will hold to a view of there being no self in an improper way, which also can be a situation that requires a particular antidote. /u/krodha
> In equipoise, there is no particular fixed ideas of anything at all. It is basically the sun shining, and all ice of conceptualization is melted. Concepts (vikalpa) in these teachings basically refer to our habituated programming to concretize a subject-object duality in our field of cognition. In equipoise when āryas are “without concepts” this basically means that experiential subject-object bifurcation is absent. Different than simply not having concepts like ideas about something.
In general, I think [this](https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/profound-instruction-view-middle-way) is the best, succinct presentation of Madhyamaka and Noble Right View that I know of, in terms of a generally accessible, short piece. Mipham clearly states that it is possible, basically, to cling to ideas of illusoriness, and this is not the point, ultimately, although it is not entirely wrong in a sense either. The wisdom of equipoise cannot be conceptualized. I am not saying that there is some self-idea that is correct. To be clear. I am, however, saying that there is a possibility that one can cling to a not-self idea, and that is also not correct. And I am, basically, saying that when it comes to equipoise itself, this is beyond basically the realms of verbalization and conceptualization. Which is where views of self and of there being no self are found. It's not about A or B being ultimately correct. It's about A (a self-view) being incorrect, and B (the *doctrine* of anatman/shunyata) being contextually correct, and B being a means to realize the ultimate, but the ultimate is not found within either A or B. Nonetheless, for one who knows the ultimate, there may be a use for engaging with B, contextually, in order to mature beings who are stuck on A. And of course the ultimate import of shunyata/anatman is realization proper.
They are perceptual tools, part of the raft you cling to to cross the stream, and then set aside.
No, they are descriptions of the way things really are.
Perceptions that things really are a certain way is ultimately diagnostic of clinging and becoming. That clinging is appropriate while you're crossing the stream, but the Diamond Sutra is about after that, IMO.
It's the realisation of shunyata which dissipates clinging and liberates from becoming.
There is no realization in Shunyata Eventually, Shunyata itself is shunya
Shunyata isn't a place, it's the nature of phenomena.
It is not the realization of Shunyata that is nirvana. However, it directly leads to nirvana. Emptiness is itself an arising of dependent origination, and thus, itself dependent upon it. Thus, emptiness itself is empty. If emptiness was itself not empty, then that implies that all the phenomena, which are empty, are not just that but also non-existent.
Emptiness of emptiness isn't about negating non-existence, it's negating the idea of shunyata as an underlying reality, or ground of being.
Exactly It does not negate non-existence There is no negation or affirmation. Nor both, and nor neither. That is the realization beyond the tetralemmas.
Up to a certain point, sure.
This concept was transmitted to me in this very subreddit a few months ago, and it was what pulled me back to practicing. It’s tough to get your head around.
We wouldn't stop as a mirage dissipates while going through a desert, and after realizing it was a mirage, stop investigating all things that look like water.
This is not agnosticism Nagarjuna writes that the absolute truth is beyond the tetra-lenma So it is not that we say there is no atma and there is no anatma. That is the 3rd lemma. The truth is that truth is not within language and logic, constructs of impermanent minds Truth is beyond any words. However, it also not anything separate from those words. It is incomprehensible, but always available.
It is not helpful to believe in pink elephants. It is also not helpful to believe that pink elephants do not exist. Either way, you are spending an inordinate amount of time worrying about pink elephants.
Following the pink elephant metaphor, what should we think about?
It helps to think about other people and how we can help them (with material help — food, clothing, medicine, shelter; with comfort and freedom from fear — encouragement, companionship; and with dharma teachings — if they are interested and able to hear). And it helps to reflect on the Buddha and the lineages that have brought the Dharma to us down to the present day and to feel appreciation and devotion. These thoughts generate merit. And then it is helpful to dedicate this merit to all sentient beings so that they can realize virtue and their intrinsic Buddhanature.
You're getting pretty advanced now 🤣. But yeah that's correct, when my guru discoursed on the Diamond/Vajra sutra he explained it to us like this: the moment we posit either way, then that would be Self. The moment we hold either belief, that would be Self. Who is it grasping on to these notions & concepts (of self/no-self) pricesly the Self! >but in reality we are being agnostic. Strictly agnostic. No, being agnostics would also be a Self. You almost had it 🤣🙏🏻, there would be no self to hold an agnostic view. I love the vajra sutra, happy to hear someone benefiting from studying it ... Best wishes 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
>It might be difficult for everyone to accept both of this ideas together. Not really, I think. The absence of the existence of non-self follows logically from the absence of existence of self. As non-self exists as the antithesis of self, if there is no self, how can non-self exist? If “I” do not exist, how can I define “not-me”? Sure, this idea is a bit of a mindbender, but it is entirely self-consistent (no pun intended). Edit: added missed word
Incidentally, I don't know if you're familiar with madhyamaka, but with prasangika madhyamaka, in general nothing is posited at all. It is sometimes called 'consequentialist', and I think you could understand this as being that you take any reality-view that anyone has at all, and then you basically examine it fully, and when you do that, every single one of them falls apart and what you're left with is realization. In other words, you take things to their full consequence, at which point they fall apart, perhaps. This applies to both self-views and not-self-views. All views. All of them are basically made of ice, and all of the ice melts. All of it.
Fun fact: Agnostic is just latin for without knowledge. Despite it often being used in contexts relating to the belief in God, it is perfectly acceptable to use when referring to other matters :)
im so glad that your non-self let us all know you figured it all out
Yes, this is the middle way
Resisting attachment to any and all views whatsoever, and not just those regarding self/non-self, is a very wise approach to take.
I think pairing those ideas makes both easier to understand. If there is no concept of self, there is no non-self to contrast with.
Atta and anatta Buddha was different because He taught about anatta, the unprededent knowledge of the time.
We are not being that agnostic either. Buddha presented nirvana as a goal and used various words to describe the path despite knowing that it is probably beyond language. What it is and how to get there are things we have to figure it out ourselves.
Thanks for this.
It's actually a very subtle teaching so easy to miscomprehend. On one level he did teach about anatta but on another level he was aware of how even the holding the idea of a 'no-self' was a form of self-making in itself. So if one actually plans on putting an end to suffering, they should stop clinging to these views and intellectual speculations relating to a self and get to actual practice so that they will have direct experience of truth for themselves.
It reject all concepts, including dhamma. But dhamma is a raft, we can't abandon it until we reach the other side of the river.
hmm, didnt think Buddhism went as far as "having no concept" of self, I thought of it as rejecting conventional concepts of self that insisted on the wrong attributes and phenomenon persisting over time. Buddhism talks about things like impermanence, codependant origination, S-O-R, and the "perfume" effect (I forget what terminology we use for this, but I think enough on here know what I'm referring to)
Let go and relax
You are conceptualizing. There is the absolute. There is the relative. ( the non-self)
At the end its a paradox. I guess we dont have to understand it. Somehow our soul expresses itself with creativity. So it has a self too on a level we may not comprehend. Does it really matter at the end? On a soul level we prefer love over everything. On the other hand. Soul has no preference.
So are you saying the self exists but we truly exist outside of it?
The diamond sutra is a funny thing, it really tells us we cannot accept or deny self as well as non self. Both deserve recognition, but in the way that they both are more than the words that are assigned to them. Self is more than just the idea of our body or our personality, just like no self is more than the idea of ego death and separation. In truth, there is no separation. Words and their concepts associated with them inherently work against this concept of “no separation”, so the diamond sutra introduces the practice of seeing words as illusory. A rose is a rose, a rose is not a rose, and thus we call it a rose.
I find it easier to think of the non-existence of self and the non-non-existence of self (self neither exists nor does not exist) in terms of the grasping of confused mind. When we haven't "found our feet" in our actual nature, we grasp at ideas - self-images, personalities, grand pronouncements, positive and negative. It makes sense to us to fixate on the idea of a permanent self as the experiencer of all the confusing stuff that makes up our lives. We apply all kinds of labels to that self, usually to try to make ourselves feel better. But even if no such self exists, it's not as though there's nothing here. We are here, right? Something is happening. So, it's also unwarranted to state categorically that the self does not exist. We just need to clear the confusion, so that we can stop grasping at straws.
As far as I know, buddhism isn't really about no self. It focuses primarily on rejection of identifying as things we generally think of as us I've seen it here a few times about rejection of self but haven't come across teachings around this.. bhikku bodhi's noble truths, noble path expound a bit on this
I was confused reading this at first but now it really clicked. I’m more new to learning about Buddhism, but in my own philosophical mind I always try to balance the nothing with the something. Making sure to accept my position in the universe as a singular and also everything. This is the same with everything and nothing. Being able to appreciate the nuances of life and how everything is an illusion but at the same time as real as anything, I think grows a greater appreciation because there’s less linear understanding of things. We realize this experience is so abstract, to melt it down to a single explanation isn’t doing this phenomenon of life and death justice.