When there is no self, who or what will exert a conscious effort to reach nirvana?

Question

According to Theravadic Buddhism there’s no self. Self is an emergent illusion of a collection of smaller entities ( citta, chaithasika etc), in the same way, the physical body is an emergent result of the 5 elements (āpo, thejo etc.). This is also somewhat coherent with modern scientific understanding, which explains mind/self is an emergent result of chemical reactions in the brain. Modern science is also on the path which states there is no free will, but rather responces and interactions to stimuli in a complex system.

My main question here is, if there is no self in Buddhism, what is the meaning of the concept of taking the right-effort (viriya) to attain nirvana, as there’s no actual actor to exert an effort? Conscious action itself is an illusion and there was no control for an alleged self in the first place. There never was an actor, and there never were conscious actions. Everything was an emergent illusion. So why talk about exerting an effort to reach Nirvana?

Answer 1

Even if there's no actor, there's still cause and effect. If I tell my child it's okay to steal bread in the bakery, he will likely go ahead and steal it. If I tell him it's bad, explain why etc. - then he's likely not going to steal.

Regardless of whether my son is a free agent with free will or not, my words and my teaching will have effect on his life.

Similarly in my own life. If I get angry at my wife and hit her, I'll damage our relationship and it may lead to divorce. If I make effort to calm down, and discuss the issue peacefully - we are more likely to find the common understanding.

Regardless of whether I am a free agent with free will or not, making the effort to overcome destructive emotions and pathological mindstates leads to better outcome than passively letting my negative instincts to overwhelm my mind.

It does not matter if there's free will or not. Even if it's strictly just cause and effect, if the Buddha's advice is a cause that makes your brain exert effort to overcome negative mindstates, it is still good advice and good effort - even without free agency.

Answer 2

Consciousness is not an illusion. If consciousness was an illusion, it would always be appearing & disappearing, often for extended periods. But, to the contrary, consciousness is generally always functionally active. Consciousness is always seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling, cognizing, etc. Even during unconscious sleep, dreams occur and consciousness becomes active again.

MN 43 says consciousness is an element that feels. MN 43 says:

'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'

MN 43

The type of consciousness that feels mental feelings is called 'mano-vinnana'. The 'mano' refers to 'the intellect'. The intellect not only accumulates wisdom but is also the source of intention (per Dhp 1 &2, which is never translated properly). Properly translated, Dhp 1 & 2 says:

The intellect (mano) precedes all doctrines of living (dhamma). The intellect is their chief; they are all intellect-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

The intellect (mano) precedes all doctrines of living (dhamma). The intellect is their chief; they are all intellect-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

Dhammapada

Therefore, the "actor" in Buddhism is the intellect (mano).

It follows the intellect's consciousness of pleasurable & unpleasable feelings is taking the right effort (viriya) to attain nirvana. Consciousness feels what is painful, pleasurable & peaceful and the intellect acts to tune into & develop what is pleasant & peaceful.

It is similar to 'reflex action'. When a hand comes into contact with burning fire, it is the reflex action of the nervous system which removes the hand from the fire.

This is similar to hunger. When the body has hunger pains, the intellect is moved to search for food. It is not "the self" that is hungry but the physical body that is hungry.

Answer 3

Certain Theravadins might claim the Buddha taught there's no self but there's no sutta in which he speaks these words. In Sabbāsavāsutta he in fact declares the view "there is no self" a "contortion of views" brought about by inappropriate attention. In Anandasutta he declares the view to side with annihilationism - an extreme wrong view. I.e. the existence or non-existence of self is a question he shows as misguided from the start, because of the detrimental effects any kind of answer to the question will incur.

Further, it's clear from the suttas that a wise sense of self is encouraged. In Bhikkhunī sutta Ven. Ananda says that one needs to depend on conceit to end it. Namely the conceit "I am capable" or precisely "why not me?" when you hear about others succeeding in meditation. And in Kitagiri sutta the Buddha says that the perspective that accords with the Dhamma for one who lives to penetrate his teaching is - very clearly spelled out in the Pali - "The Buddha is the teacher. I am a disciple (sāvakohamasmi). He is the one who knows, not I."

In short, he taught that you need to develop a sense of self around the effort required to attain the goal.

Also note he never taught that there is an impermanent self. He criticised all self-doctrines.

Answer 4

The short answer is that you make the effort. The meditator makes the effort. The monk makes the effort:

“And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. This, monks, is called right effort." SN 45:8

Answer 5

My main question here is, if there is no self in Buddhism

Just to clarify that the Buddha did not say there is no self or there is a self that is permanent/eternal (SN44.10). What he declared is that there is no permanent self i.e. there is no element, factor or component within us that remains unchanging and eternally constant as we travel through samsara (the rounds of death and rebirth). Unfortunately, even the previous statement can be misconstrued by wrong views. Someone would ask who is going through the rounds of samsara, isn’t that me? So, implicitly there is a self that is eternal, right?

Let’s use an analogy. Suppose we wake up and find ourselves on a huge luxury cruise ship in the ocean. We had the best time of our lives, enjoying the wonderful food/facilities/entertainment on the luxury liner the whole day. Then the next day upon waking up, we find ourselves on a large container ship. Not very interesting, lots of work but the ship is stable and safe in the ocean. Then another time we wake up and we are on a rickety raft. There is huge wave and our raft breaks apart. As a result, we find ourselves floating helplessly and miserably in the ocean. At this point, we might be wondering why we are travelling, seemingly forever, in the ocean.

what is the meaning of the concept of taking the right-effort (viriya) to attain nirvana, as there’s no actual actor to exert an effort? Conscious action itself is an illusion....why talk about exerting an effort to reach Nirvana?

If we replace the ocean in the above analogy for samsara, we begin to understand what a constantly changing self means. It means there is no safe refuge. Things can change in a blink of an eye. We could be in the prime of our lives, surrounded by wealth, power and fame. Then in the next moment, our personal physician informed us that our latest health screening revealed a malignant growth in a part of our body that had metastasized. And just like that the illusion of safety and invulnerability falls apart. At this point, we might try to fall back upon the belief that there is no self so why get so worked up, right? But then the whole idea reveals itself to be just that; an idea that offers no comfort or solace.

Suddenly, the 1st noble truth (i.e. suffering exists) starts to make sense. We begin to understand that when we are suffering, it is not an illusion. When we are trying to save ourselves, it is not a wrong effort. And it no longer seems pointless and meaningless for people to want and make efforts to seek a true refuge and eternal safety from sufferings, old age, illness and death i.e. Nirvana.