<p>In dependent origination, the stage self comes into picture is at '<em>attachment</em>' and is full mature at '<em>birth</em>'. As a modern Indian, you (the questioner) should know the word '<em>jati</em>' ('<em>birth</em>') does not mean '<em>physical birth from the mother</em>' but means '<em>self or social identity</em>'.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ,
  Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is a group of clans,
  tribes, communities and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each
  jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or
  tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or
  linguistic groupings may define some jatis. A person's surname
  typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi =
  perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, Ror =
  Warriors etc. Wikipedia</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The self certainly originates, as described in many suttas below: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging,
  view clinging, precept &amp; practice clinging, and doctrine of <strong>self</strong>
  clinging. This is called clinging.</p>
  
  <p>SN 12.2</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &amp;
  delight, relishing now here &amp; now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
  Visakha, is the <strong>origination of</strong> <strong>self-identification</strong> described by the
  Blessed One.</p>
  
  <p>MN 44</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
  <strong>self</strong>. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
  the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
  of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
  touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
  arises. That fabrication [of <strong>self</strong>] is born of that. And that fabrication is
  inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That
  feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated,
  dependently co-arisen.</p>
  
  <p>SN 22.81</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>This, monks, is the path of practice leading to <strong>self</strong>-identification.
  One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is
  what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness
  at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes
  about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is
  my self, this is what I am.'</p>
  
  <p>"One assumes about the ear...</p>
  
  <p>"One assumes about the nose...</p>
  
  <p>"One assumes about the tongue...</p>
  
  <p>"One assumes about the body...</p>
  
  <p>"One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self,
  this is what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about
  consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the
  intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving
  that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'</p>
  
  <p>MN 148</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"</p>
  
  <p>"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.</p>
  
  <p>"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then
  the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But
  since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will
  be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the
  correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of
  sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"</p>
  
  <p>"Who, O Lord, feels?"</p>
  
  <p>"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
  that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling;
  and feeling is the condition of craving.'"</p>
  
  <p>"Who, O Lord, craves?"</p>
  
  <p>"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
  that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and
  craving is the condition of clinging.'"</p>
  
  <p>"Who, O Lord, clings?"</p>
  
  <p>"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say
  that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  <strong>clinging</strong> is the condition of the process of <strong>becoming</strong>.' Such is the
  origin of this entire mass of suffering.</p>
  
  <p>SN 12.2</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-27T03:47:09.723Z
Ignorance can arise when one is not aware of the teachings of Buddha Dhamma. Dhamma states Anatta. Therefore I think self is found where ignorance is found.
Dheeraj Verma
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-27T02:52:30.450Z
2018-03-27T03:03:12.300Z
2018-03-27T03:03:12.300Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>In dependent origination at what stage self comes into picture ? Does self originate ?</p>

<anatman><pratityasamutpada><atman>
Does it make sense to talk about origin of self?
# Does it make sense to talk about origin of self?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-03-27)

In dependent origination at what stage self comes into picture ? Does self originate ?

**Tags:** anatman, pratityasamutpada, atman


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-03-27. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

In dependent origination, the stage self comes into picture is at '*attachment*' and is full mature at '*birth*'. As a modern Indian, you (the questioner) should know the word '*jati*' ('*birth*') does not mean '*physical birth from the mother*' but means '*self or social identity*'.

> Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ,
> Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is a group of clans,
> tribes, communities and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each
> jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or
> tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or
> linguistic groupings may define some jatis. A person's surname
> typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi =
> perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, Ror =
> Warriors etc. Wikipedia

The self certainly originates, as described in many suttas below:

> And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging,
> view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of **self**
> clinging. This is called clinging.
>
> SN 12.2
>
> ---
>
> The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
> delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
> pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
> Visakha, is the **origination of** **self-identification** described by the
> Blessed One.
>
> MN 44
>
> ---
>
> There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
> has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
> their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
> well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
> **self**. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
> the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
> of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
> touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
> arises. That fabrication [of **self**] is born of that. And that fabrication is
> inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That
> feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated,
> dependently co-arisen.
>
> SN 22.81
>
> ---
>
> This, monks, is the path of practice leading to **self**-identification.
> One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is
> what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness
> at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes
> about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is
> my self, this is what I am.'
>
> "One assumes about the ear...
>
> "One assumes about the nose...
>
> "One assumes about the tongue...
>
> "One assumes about the body...
>
> "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self,
> this is what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about
> consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the
> intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving
> that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
>
> MN 148
>
> ---
>
> Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
>
> "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
>
> "I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then
> the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But
> since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will
> be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the
> correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of
> sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"
>
> "Who, O Lord, feels?"
>
> "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
> that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would
> be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
> the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that
> the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling;
> and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
>
> "Who, O Lord, craves?"
>
> "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
> that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would
> be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
> the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that
> the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and
> craving is the condition of clinging.'"
>
> "Who, O Lord, clings?"
>
> "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say
> that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would
> be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
> the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that
> the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
> **clinging** is the condition of the process of **becoming**.' Such is the
> origin of this entire mass of suffering.
>
> SN 12.2

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Ignorance can arise when one is not aware of the teachings of Buddha Dhamma. Dhamma states Anatta. Therefore I think self is found where ignorance is found.  

---

