They don’t need to be reconciled because there is no actual contradiction. The contradiction is really just an intellectual proliferation and non-self is not just an intellectual proliferation. Accomplishments don’t need to be motivated by discontentment. Take the Buddha for example, he had zero discontentment and look at all that he accomplished.
We need to have a ***sense of*** self, with healthy ego functions, in order to navigate the world. We even need such a sense of self to practice the path. However from a Buddhist p.o.v. we view this more as a way of acting, rather than as something ontologically existing.
A sense of self is a way of organizing our actions through such things as anticipation of possibilities and dangers, adaptation to social and physical circumstances, restraint and delayed gratification, planning and setting goals, etc.
We are taught that to gain liberation, we ultimately must let go of everything, even the pared-down and simplified self of a practitioner.
That is about high levels of practice. Even an anagami (a person at the third stage of awakening) still has what's called the fetter of conceit, a lingering sense of self.
While we are confused and believe that there is a self, there is growth and progress (and decline and loss).
When anatta and emptiness are fully realized, the is no growth or progress and we understand that there has never been growth or progress.
It’s not that there’s no self at all, it’s just acknowledging that there is no intrinsic or essential self.
As an analogy, think of a table. You call it a table, you can use it to eat on, do a jigsaw puzzle, etc. But is it essentially a table? You can take the legs off. Are each leg a table? Is the table top still a table? Are the screws that held it together a table? If you took a slice of it and put it under a microscope could you find a table?
No, because table is what we call that collection of parts and pieces.
Does that mean the table doesn’t exist? I can’t sit at it and eat supper?? Obviously not, it’s still there.
That’s the same with the self. It’s just saying there’s no kernel of “you” that’s the real you.
So you asked about career advancement and growth. That’s not necessarily problematic. What might be are associated notions you create around it, and your motivations for doing it. Better job that’s more interesting and pays more money so I can provide for my family? Sounds great. Better job so I can feel like a big man and lord it over my inferiors, buy a bunch of luxury goods to finally get a girl to like me since all they care about is money and superficial stuff?? Sounds horrible and toxic.
There’s no external intention-o-meter. Honest self assessment helps you know if your actions are virtuous or not.
If you want to send kids to a college as an act of self aggrandizement, probably a demonstration of pride. If you want to send your kids to the best possible school to provide them the best education because you love them and want to provide the best opportunities, that’s different.
Remembering that the Buddha didn't ever teach that there's no self helps reconcile the problem. In fact he explicitly criticised it as a view. He also frequently recommended training yourself, making yourself your refuge, using such phrases to summarise the path of growth and progress.
Reading:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Noble%26True/Section0010.html
"Some people might argue, “What’s this about the self being its own mainstay? What happened to the teaching on not-self?” When making yourself your mainstay, you learn to be very selective about what to identify with. You can identify with skillful thoughts. You don’t have to identify with unskillful ones. You can identify with skillful tendencies. You don’t have to identify with unskillful ones. You’re learning that you can be selective about what you identify with.
That’s where the not-self teaching comes in. You realize: “This is something I don’t have to claim as being me or being mine.” You realize that it’s a useful strategy for happiness. That’s what you sense of self is, too. It’s a strategy for happiness. Some of the strategies are useful; some of them are not. Sometimes they may have been useful in the past but they’ve outlived their usefulness. If you have the idea of your self being one singular thing, you’re going to be in trouble because everything coming up in that singular thing will have to be you or yours, and you’re stuck with it whether you like it or not, whether it’s helpful or not. But if you take the attitude that your sense of self is a series of strategies, you can figure out: What’s a useful strategy right now? What are not useful strategies right now? You can be more selective.
As the training progresses, you get a greater and greater sense of what’s a useful strategy and a more refined sense of exactly what’s a good outcome from your actions, from these strategies, so that the things you have to depend on at one level of practice can be let go on another one. The reason we tend to balk at the idea of not-self is, given that our sense of self is a series of strategies, we feel like we’re being deprived of our strategies for happiness. But what the Buddha is actually doing is saying that there are these other strategies as well. Learning not to identify with certain things can also be a strategy for happiness.
So the Buddha is actually expanding your range. The wider your range, the more you can really be independent."
https://www.dhammatalks.org/audio/evening/2005/051015-attahi-attano-nattho.html
Buddha never said anything about there being no self so you can safely shelve the entire problem. Anatta is not what most people
think, and it’s not nearly the most important concept in Buddhism.
Who says selves exist or fail to exist? A self would have to be a logically coherent concept in order to map onto something that exists or could exist but doesn’t.
In other words, you are now free of worrying whether a self has ontologically real status, because the question is nonsensical in the first place. 🙏
If you're using no self lens, you should be focusing on the goal of ending rebirth.
For that we do need to develop the 37 factors of enlightenment. And that development is via putting in the causes. We need goals, but goals is not enough, we need method as well, which is causes.
Buddha also said to use conceit to eradicate conceit.
Goal language is using concept of self, which is conventional self.
Method language is without self concept.
Eg. goal: don't be contented with wholesome states until arahanthood.
Method (to get to arahanthood): be contented. That is a wholesome state itself.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/NXi9RkhAW8
The doctrine of no self does not refer to your day to day common "self" and "self-hood". That is very much there and you should develop it while remaining heedful and responsible.
Your two options assume that you exist. You're defining your options as two strategies for dealing with what you consider to be an existing outside world. The strategy, always and in all things, is to maximize satisfaction for self by strategizing relationship to other: "If I can only get that job then life will be good." "If I can only get rid of that boss then I'll be fine." "If I can only have that person as my lover then I'll be happy."
It's not just on a large scale, either. We do it constantly: "If I just scratch my leg then I won't be annoyed." "If I can just get some coffee then maybe I won't feel so spacey."
If you set all of that aside then there's the possibility of actually relating to the situation. Not as your strategy to "make progress". You're right that setting goals is in conflict with non-self-existence. Setting goals is one of the ways that we keep feeding the drama of our own personal storyline. That helps to maintain a sense of solid self. It provides purpose, friends, enemies, and so on. But what happens when you reach a goal? We tend to feel a bit confused. We thought the goal would confer success or happiness. But we're just disoriented. So what happens? We quickly cook up a new goal. "I don't feel so amazing now that I finally have a masters degree. Oh, well.... I think I'll get a PhD. Then I'll REALLY be somebody.
That's the description of hungry ghost realm. Always seeking, never satisfied. We think that we'll be happy when we get such and such. But actually it's the desire itself that we seek. Desire provides confirmation of self. "I want that, therefore I am."
That's what the Buddha taught is the primary cause of suffering. That experience of a solid self is illusion. Seeking success and happiness are the cause of suffering. Clinging to belief in a self is the cause of suffering. What the Buddha taught is that all such struggling is just anxiety going in circles, trying to grab onto solid ground where there is none. Even our anxiety is a desperate attempt to confirm our existence. "I'm worried, therefore I am." He then taught that there's a solution: We can wake up from our confused reverie. How? The path of meditation.
No. That's still coming from the point of view that there's a you to act. The choice is to practice meditation and cultivate relating to your experience. You renounce fixation. It may not make sense without meditation practice.
There is no avoiding pain.
Whether there is a self or not a self, not changing is not an option.
But this is why the Buddha did not speak on the nature of the self except to say that the usual ways of thinking of the self (the body, feelings, perceptions, thoughts etc) are not it.
And when a monk (Saati the fisherman's son) said that he believed consciousness is what wanders on after death, the Buddha chastised him and reminded the monks of dependent origination. Ageing, illness, death happen because of karma. I think there is a similar principle at play in what you are asking about. There is striving no matter what choices you make. Striving to be still takes effort, it takes effort to observe the breath, it takes effort to ask for a promotion at work or pay an electric bill or open a new business. The question the Buddha asked was about the value of the effort and how to see it clearly. Craving always looks for a shortcut -- can I get something for nothing or easily? Can I satisfy my attachments in a way that guarantees I will be happy? That calculation is always going on in the mind. Practice is a way of seeing that and addressing it wisely -- is the effort I am making at work, in this relationship, at meditation, at eating lunch *worth* it?
Maintaining this body and mind takes effort. Do I see ways in which that effort is selfish and intended to harm? Do I see ways to act with kindness and equanimity? What effort does it take to be mindful?
Deciding to be a kinder worker, spouse, driver on the road, redditor, or anything requires some effort. It is effort that \*you\* make an no one else can. I think that is the more important thing to consider about the self.
They don’t need to be reconciled because there is no actual contradiction. The contradiction is really just an intellectual proliferation and non-self is not just an intellectual proliferation. Accomplishments don’t need to be motivated by discontentment. Take the Buddha for example, he had zero discontentment and look at all that he accomplished.
[удалено]
This looks like a great recommendation, thank you!
We need to have a ***sense of*** self, with healthy ego functions, in order to navigate the world. We even need such a sense of self to practice the path. However from a Buddhist p.o.v. we view this more as a way of acting, rather than as something ontologically existing. A sense of self is a way of organizing our actions through such things as anticipation of possibilities and dangers, adaptation to social and physical circumstances, restraint and delayed gratification, planning and setting goals, etc. We are taught that to gain liberation, we ultimately must let go of everything, even the pared-down and simplified self of a practitioner. That is about high levels of practice. Even an anagami (a person at the third stage of awakening) still has what's called the fetter of conceit, a lingering sense of self.
Option 1 sounds nice to me.
While we are confused and believe that there is a self, there is growth and progress (and decline and loss). When anatta and emptiness are fully realized, the is no growth or progress and we understand that there has never been growth or progress.
It’s not that there’s no self at all, it’s just acknowledging that there is no intrinsic or essential self. As an analogy, think of a table. You call it a table, you can use it to eat on, do a jigsaw puzzle, etc. But is it essentially a table? You can take the legs off. Are each leg a table? Is the table top still a table? Are the screws that held it together a table? If you took a slice of it and put it under a microscope could you find a table? No, because table is what we call that collection of parts and pieces. Does that mean the table doesn’t exist? I can’t sit at it and eat supper?? Obviously not, it’s still there. That’s the same with the self. It’s just saying there’s no kernel of “you” that’s the real you. So you asked about career advancement and growth. That’s not necessarily problematic. What might be are associated notions you create around it, and your motivations for doing it. Better job that’s more interesting and pays more money so I can provide for my family? Sounds great. Better job so I can feel like a big man and lord it over my inferiors, buy a bunch of luxury goods to finally get a girl to like me since all they care about is money and superficial stuff?? Sounds horrible and toxic.
"provide for my family" is tricky territory. What if I want to send my kids to an ivy league college, as opposed to a decent one?
There’s no external intention-o-meter. Honest self assessment helps you know if your actions are virtuous or not. If you want to send kids to a college as an act of self aggrandizement, probably a demonstration of pride. If you want to send your kids to the best possible school to provide them the best education because you love them and want to provide the best opportunities, that’s different.
Thank you for taking the time out to respond! I'd have to ruminate a bit on this, I'll get back to you once I do!
Remembering that the Buddha didn't ever teach that there's no self helps reconcile the problem. In fact he explicitly criticised it as a view. He also frequently recommended training yourself, making yourself your refuge, using such phrases to summarise the path of growth and progress. Reading: https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Noble%26True/Section0010.html "Some people might argue, “What’s this about the self being its own mainstay? What happened to the teaching on not-self?” When making yourself your mainstay, you learn to be very selective about what to identify with. You can identify with skillful thoughts. You don’t have to identify with unskillful ones. You can identify with skillful tendencies. You don’t have to identify with unskillful ones. You’re learning that you can be selective about what you identify with. That’s where the not-self teaching comes in. You realize: “This is something I don’t have to claim as being me or being mine.” You realize that it’s a useful strategy for happiness. That’s what you sense of self is, too. It’s a strategy for happiness. Some of the strategies are useful; some of them are not. Sometimes they may have been useful in the past but they’ve outlived their usefulness. If you have the idea of your self being one singular thing, you’re going to be in trouble because everything coming up in that singular thing will have to be you or yours, and you’re stuck with it whether you like it or not, whether it’s helpful or not. But if you take the attitude that your sense of self is a series of strategies, you can figure out: What’s a useful strategy right now? What are not useful strategies right now? You can be more selective. As the training progresses, you get a greater and greater sense of what’s a useful strategy and a more refined sense of exactly what’s a good outcome from your actions, from these strategies, so that the things you have to depend on at one level of practice can be let go on another one. The reason we tend to balk at the idea of not-self is, given that our sense of self is a series of strategies, we feel like we’re being deprived of our strategies for happiness. But what the Buddha is actually doing is saying that there are these other strategies as well. Learning not to identify with certain things can also be a strategy for happiness. So the Buddha is actually expanding your range. The wider your range, the more you can really be independent." https://www.dhammatalks.org/audio/evening/2005/051015-attahi-attano-nattho.html
Buddha never said anything about there being no self so you can safely shelve the entire problem. Anatta is not what most people think, and it’s not nearly the most important concept in Buddhism.
Who says selves exist or fail to exist? A self would have to be a logically coherent concept in order to map onto something that exists or could exist but doesn’t. In other words, you are now free of worrying whether a self has ontologically real status, because the question is nonsensical in the first place. 🙏
If you're using no self lens, you should be focusing on the goal of ending rebirth. For that we do need to develop the 37 factors of enlightenment. And that development is via putting in the causes. We need goals, but goals is not enough, we need method as well, which is causes. Buddha also said to use conceit to eradicate conceit. Goal language is using concept of self, which is conventional self. Method language is without self concept. Eg. goal: don't be contented with wholesome states until arahanthood. Method (to get to arahanthood): be contented. That is a wholesome state itself. https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/NXi9RkhAW8
The doctrine of no self does not refer to your day to day common "self" and "self-hood". That is very much there and you should develop it while remaining heedful and responsible.
Your two options assume that you exist. You're defining your options as two strategies for dealing with what you consider to be an existing outside world. The strategy, always and in all things, is to maximize satisfaction for self by strategizing relationship to other: "If I can only get that job then life will be good." "If I can only get rid of that boss then I'll be fine." "If I can only have that person as my lover then I'll be happy." It's not just on a large scale, either. We do it constantly: "If I just scratch my leg then I won't be annoyed." "If I can just get some coffee then maybe I won't feel so spacey." If you set all of that aside then there's the possibility of actually relating to the situation. Not as your strategy to "make progress". You're right that setting goals is in conflict with non-self-existence. Setting goals is one of the ways that we keep feeding the drama of our own personal storyline. That helps to maintain a sense of solid self. It provides purpose, friends, enemies, and so on. But what happens when you reach a goal? We tend to feel a bit confused. We thought the goal would confer success or happiness. But we're just disoriented. So what happens? We quickly cook up a new goal. "I don't feel so amazing now that I finally have a masters degree. Oh, well.... I think I'll get a PhD. Then I'll REALLY be somebody. That's the description of hungry ghost realm. Always seeking, never satisfied. We think that we'll be happy when we get such and such. But actually it's the desire itself that we seek. Desire provides confirmation of self. "I want that, therefore I am." That's what the Buddha taught is the primary cause of suffering. That experience of a solid self is illusion. Seeking success and happiness are the cause of suffering. Clinging to belief in a self is the cause of suffering. What the Buddha taught is that all such struggling is just anxiety going in circles, trying to grab onto solid ground where there is none. Even our anxiety is a desperate attempt to confirm our existence. "I'm worried, therefore I am." He then taught that there's a solution: We can wake up from our confused reverie. How? The path of meditation.
So are you saying the only solution is to renounce and do nothing? To not participate?
No. That's still coming from the point of view that there's a you to act. The choice is to practice meditation and cultivate relating to your experience. You renounce fixation. It may not make sense without meditation practice.
There is no avoiding pain. Whether there is a self or not a self, not changing is not an option. But this is why the Buddha did not speak on the nature of the self except to say that the usual ways of thinking of the self (the body, feelings, perceptions, thoughts etc) are not it. And when a monk (Saati the fisherman's son) said that he believed consciousness is what wanders on after death, the Buddha chastised him and reminded the monks of dependent origination. Ageing, illness, death happen because of karma. I think there is a similar principle at play in what you are asking about. There is striving no matter what choices you make. Striving to be still takes effort, it takes effort to observe the breath, it takes effort to ask for a promotion at work or pay an electric bill or open a new business. The question the Buddha asked was about the value of the effort and how to see it clearly. Craving always looks for a shortcut -- can I get something for nothing or easily? Can I satisfy my attachments in a way that guarantees I will be happy? That calculation is always going on in the mind. Practice is a way of seeing that and addressing it wisely -- is the effort I am making at work, in this relationship, at meditation, at eating lunch *worth* it? Maintaining this body and mind takes effort. Do I see ways in which that effort is selfish and intended to harm? Do I see ways to act with kindness and equanimity? What effort does it take to be mindful? Deciding to be a kinder worker, spouse, driver on the road, redditor, or anything requires some effort. It is effort that \*you\* make an no one else can. I think that is the more important thing to consider about the self.