After no-self, is there self improvement?

Moyshekapoyre SG

Namaste folks,

Here's a question I keep meaning to ask, but I need someone who is enlightened and has eradicated their self to answer it for me (like AEN?)..

I saw a YouTube video talking about how when the self is eliminated, all doing becomes simply automatic functioning. Sure, well this is what everyone seems to say who is enlightened, right?

But then someone said in the comments, "Yes, it is true that everything becomes automatic, but we still have to work on self improvement." Huh?

Buddha stressed the importance of living virtuously--perhaps because when you lose your self, you become simply a machine which works based off behavioral patterns that your pretend self has already established, and thus it is good to establish virtuous patterns before losing the controlling self? Or else what is the point of morality in Buddhism?

I read an article on buddhistgeeks which talked about this academic study being done on self-identified enlightened people, who all seem to agree that they have no self. They all say that once they lost the self, they became much more functional and efficient, and many of these people are now high up in the corporate and government world, which demonstrates their high functioning.

However, as a person who identifies with the Zapatistas and such movements, I would sincerely hope that when we lose our pretend self, we do not live to perpetuate neoliberal institutions!

Thoughts??

An Eternal Now SG

Hi Moyshekapoyre, welcome. First of all, you cannot eliminate self. Why? Because there never was a self. If a self had existed, it can become non-existent. But this is not true.

This is where the Buddha asked:

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

So first of all you must understand Anatta as a dharma seal. This means all along, all experience is already empty of self. There never was or is a perceiver, doer, seer, controller, thinker, feeler, hearer, etc. In hearing just sounds, in seeing just sights.. always already so.

Enlightenment is not about removing self, it is about realizing there never is/was a self. Directly realize, in thinking just thoughts, never a thinker. Seeing just sight... etc. This is important.

So you cannot lose your controlling self: you can only realize that all along, there never was a controller. Action has/is always happening without doer. Activities are just happening due to causes and conditions, it is/has always been like that.

Secondly, "automatic functioning" should never be misunderstood as spontaneous arising without causes or conditions. All along, there is action but no doer. And action arises out of many conditions including our latent tendencies. Action can be spontaneous but it is not 'causeless spontaneity'.

So obviously we still must, and can, do something about unwholesome tendencies - they can be terminated. It just means the idea that there is a controller to control things just isn't true.

This is where my entry in my e-book is relevant:

not to be mistaken that will has no part in all these. The teaching of anatta or no self does not deny will or the aggregates... The buddha teaches that a sentient being is simply a convention for five aggregates: matter/body, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness. Notice that volition is part of it. This will/volition can be directed towards a wholesome or unwholesome path. However, also remember that the five aggregates are empty of self - and are without agent. Does that mean there is no free will? In a sense yes, but neither does it imply determinism: another dualistic extreme. Free will means subjective controller determines action, determinism means objective world determines subjective experience. In reality there is no subject and object - in thinking just thought, in hearing just sound. But there are requisite conditions for every manifestation. Those conditions can be changed if there is a correct path.

A concrete example: if you ask a beginner to run 2.4km in 9 minutes with an unfit body, that is asking for the impossible. No matter how hard willed is he, he is never going to make it. Why? The current requisite conditions of his body is such that the result of running 9 minutes is impossible. Control, agency, doesn't apply when manifestation always arise due to conditions.

It however also means that if you exercise regularly for months or years, there is no reason the body (conditions) cannot be improved to the degree that running 9 mins is definitely possible. This is what I mean by working with conditions.

So those teachers who say meditation are useless are not understanding latent tendencies and conditions. They mistook no doership with some kind of fatalism. Every proper practice has its place in working with one's conditions.

Just because there is no self, no doer, doesn't mean my body is fated to be unfit and I can't reach the 9 min. Just because I exercise regularly doesn't mean I am reinforcing the notion of self or doership. In any case, action is always without self.

It also does not mean that "will" has no place at all. "Will" is often misunderstood to be linked to a self or agent that has full control over things, whereas it is simply more manifestation and conditions. Yes, sheer will going against conditions isn't going to work – this is not understanding no-self and dependent origination. But if will is directed properly with correct understanding of no-self and conditionality, at a proper path and practice, it can lead to benefits.

That is why the first teaching of Buddha is the four noble truths: the truth of suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, the way to end suffering. This path arises as a result of his direct insight into no-self and dependent origination.

Like a doctor, you don't tell your patients "you are fated to be ill and sick and in pain, because there is no individual controller, everything is the will of God". That is nonsense. Instead, you diagnose the illness, you seek the cause of illness, you give a treatment that eliminates the cause of illness. There is no self, there is no controller, but there is conditions and manifestation and a way to treat bad conditions. This is the way of the four noble truths.

An Eternal Now SG

There are a lot of lack of clarity and wrong understanding perpetrated in the spiritual scene... by youtube... by internet... by teachers... by masters. Not to be misinformed by them.

An Eternal Now SG

As for the Buddha's reasons for teaching morality.

1) It is both conducive to well-being of self and others in a more immediate sense

2) Due to karma and future lifetimes, it is conducive to well-being of oneself in the future as well, due to ripening of karma

3) Unwholesome actions can obstruct or hinder the development of samadhi and insight, therefore morality, samadhi and wisdom cultivation are the three trainings taught as a package for liberation.

allkosong SG

Hi Moyshekapoyre, welcome. First of all, you cannot eliminate self. Why? Because there never was a self. If a self had existed, it can become non-existent. But this is not true.

This is where the Buddha asked:

"No, lord."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

So obviously we still must, and can, do something about unwholesome tendencies - they can be terminated. It just means the idea that there is a controller to control things just isn't true.

This is where my entry in my e-book is relevant:

It is very hard to see how volition/will is no-self. What dictates what action/decision one takes then, especially if we do not believe in determinism?

Personally, I have a tendency towards determinism as it makes no-self much easier to understand:)

allkosong SG

Hi Moyshekapoyre, welcome. First of all, you cannot eliminate self. Why? Because there never was a self. If a self had existed, it can become non-existent. But this is not true.

This is where the Buddha asked:

"No, lord."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

So obviously we still must, and can, do something about unwholesome tendencies - they can be terminated. It just means the idea that there is a controller to control things just isn't true.

This is where my entry in my e-book is relevant:

Hi AEN,

I have another question regarding no-self:

When one has realized no-self, then why would it still matter what happens to his/her body and 5 aggregates? I'd imagine that it will not make any difference anymore whatever happens in the rest of his/her human life (hence why bother to keep a healthy body, work, etc?).

This is one question I have been struggling with. Would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.

An Eternal Now SG

It is very hard to see how volition/will is no-self. What dictates what action/decision one takes then, especially if we do not believe in determinism?

Personally, I have a tendency towards determinism as it makes no-self much easier to understand:)

There is no "something" which dictates. There is no dictator. There is just causes and conditions manifesting, including latent tendencies.

Your sight of this forum is not dictated by something. It is the result of countless causes and conditions.

Determinism is an extreme, free will is another extreme insofar as each thinks of an agent, a controller, which cannot be found.

An Eternal Now SG

Hi AEN,

I have another question regarding no-self:

This is one question I have been struggling with. Would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.

The basic compassion, the wish for the well-being of oneself and all others, continue after realization. There is no contradiction.

By the way traditionally, there are thousands of lay persons who achieve up to the level of anagami, but those lay-men who became arhants either died the very day or they renounced their lay life to enter the sangha that very day. I wonder if there are any arhants nowadays.

So yes, if you reach complete liberation, you will probably be very dispassionate with the worldly life of sensual enjoyment etc. You will prefer to live a life of a renunciant.

allkosong SG

There is no "something" which dictates. There is no dictator. There is just causes and conditions manifesting, including latent tendencies.

Your sight of this forum is not dictated by something. It is the result of countless causes and conditions.

Determinism is an extreme, free will is another extreme insofar as each thinks of an agent, a controller, which cannot be found.

Hi AEN -

If everything that arises is due to past and present causes and conditions, then is that not another form of determinism ie. one can no longer stop the imminent and inevitable consequences of past causes/conditions? ie. one has no control of one's current situations? so then everything/life basically follows a set of laws of nature and is pre-determined?

Please excuse my never-ending questions as I try to understand and thank you for your patience.

allkosong SG

The basic compassion, the wish for the well-being of oneself and all others, continue after realization. There is no contradiction.

So yes, if you reach complete liberation, you will probably be very dispassionate with the worldly life of sensual enjoyment etc. You will prefer to live a life of a renunciant.

Hi AEN,

Is it correct to say that in complete liberation, one would have realized no-self and non-duality? If there is non-duality, why would there still be a feeling of well-being and non-well-being for oneself and others? At that point, shouldn't there be no more distinction between good and bad?

I'd imagine that the fully enlightened being would be in complete peace with whatever happens to his/her own body and to all other beings, and hence be a renunciate and just be a passive witness to all that happens around him/her. Is that a correct conclusion?

An Eternal Now SG

Hi AEN,

Realization of no-self can be like stream-entry. There are further stages of development, e.g. once returner, non returner, arhant. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment

Non-duality is not about not being able to distinguish good and bad. It is about not having craving and aversion or attachment for good and bad. But you can still have compassion.

An Eternal Now SG

Hi AEN -

Please excuse my never-ending questions as I try to understand and thank you for your patience.

This is not true. There is no control but there is influence. This is elucidated in my first post here, starting from "This is where my entry in my e-book is relevant:..."

Aik TC SG

So yes, if you reach complete liberation, you will probably be very dispassionate with the worldly life of sensual enjoyment etc.

According to SN 4.6 Jara Sutta, when complete liberation is reach it is stated that :

"In no other way does he wish for purity, for he neither takes on passion nor puts it away." This would mean that an arahant would have gone beyond dispassion all together.

sinweiy SG

According to SN 4.6 Jara Sutta, when complete liberation is reach it is stated that :

"In no other way does he wish for purity, for he neither takes on passion nor puts it away." This would mean that an arahant would have gone beyond dispassion all together.

indeed i concur.

An Eternal Now SG

Yes you are right, an arahant is beyond disenchantment and dispassion. Disenchantment leads to dispassion, dispassion leads to the release from cankers.

This “release” is the true experience of arahants.

However it is also true that arahant can no longer have passion for worldly lay life. In all the suttas, arahants either die on that day or take up the robes on that very day of his liberation, if he weren’t already a monk/nun.

The Buddha said that there were thousands of lay stream winners, once returners and non returners, but added: “Vaccha, there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of suffering”.

So I do not believe that there exists arahants who choose to live a lay life.

lce SG

wen they is no self , you have reached yr destiny

An Eternal Now SG

Even Venerable Shen Kai explained that when a person who wishes to proceed from the first bhumi (defined by the perfection of giving, which means letting go, and the realization of the twofold emptiness, leading to the termination of view-confusion) to the second bhumi (defined by the perfection of precepts, and the attenuation of passion, aggression and delusion, leading to the termination of practice-confusion), one must renounce lay life and enter monastic sangha.

This is one point I personally asked his successor Taiwanese missionary chen ming an when I had the opportunity to speak and discuss things with him in person.

He explained that in order to proceed – if you are still cultivating, then renouncing lay life is important and helpful. But if you are a “returning bodhisattva” like vimalakirti, which by the way is already a 10th bhumi bodhisattva, that may be a different matter.

So the answer is that practically speaking, arahants and bodhisattvas will renounce as long as they have overcome, or wish to overcome, some subtler afflictions. But according to mahayana there are always exceptions, such as returning great bodhisattvas. My taiwanese teacher adds that even though these bodhisattvas may appear as lay men, their precepts and conduct may be as pure as a monk.

Also according to taiwanese teacher chen, a first bhumi bodhisattva can still have sexual intercourse as a lay person. (Similarly in pali suttas, stream enterers and once returners still can have sexual intercourse, but non returners and arahants no longer do it)

He also added that passions are attenuated (significantly reduced) but not completely removed at 2nd bhumi, it is only completely removed at 8th bhumi.

Elsewhere, I read that there are two interpretations: the prasangika school of madhyamika teaches that an arahant when developing bodhicitta jumps to the 8th bhumi because a practitioner only starts to overcome knowledge obscurations preventing omniscience, after completely eliminating affective or emotional obscurations.

The svatantrika school of madhyamika says that the arahant has to proceed to 1st bhumi if he joins mahayana, because the bhumi path simultaneously removes affective and knowledge obscurations, so even though an arahant removes affective obscurations he/she has to start from first bhumi. My Mahayana teachers seem to follow this line of thought.

An Eternal Now SG

Just to add: affective/emotional obscurations are removed through the complete realization of a subjective self or atman up till the removal of the subtle conceit of ‘I am’. Knowledge obscurations preventing omniscience are removed when both subjective self or atman, and objective phenomena are realized as empty.

sinweiy SG

can say bodhisattvas' "passion" are not like samsaric passion. they are fake "passion", solely directed to helping sentient beings. none of it are did it for self "pleasure". we say it's passion, yet its not real passion at all. look like passion, but there's NO passion. more importantly, its the substance inside. Phenomena seem like passion, but neumonon is still No passion.

(In Avatamsaka Sutra, Sudhana 53 visits, also involve different bodhisattvas in different lay career and ordain career. )

and also to add why all Buddhas have to display going thru a same steps of entering monkhood etc. Maitreya too, when He come down. it's very important for sentient being to see.

MCK stated Shakyamuni appeared as an Ordianed Buddha while Vimalakirti appeared as a Lay/Household Buddha. Both are equally Fully awakened. when Buddha ask his disciples to pay a visit to Vimalakirti, they also have to bow and circumambulate around Vimalakirti 3 times, just like they did with Shakyamuni Buddha. same treatment and respect. no other bodhisattvas have such respected treatment.