Is no-I just a model for correct view?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby no mike » Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:30 pm

Since there is a doer doing khamma, is there a self? Is my khamma mine?

Is "no-I, no-me, not-mine" a creative model to help establish correct view of what "I" is not? Such as in: there is no true "I" found in or of one's impermanent worldly aggregates?

My perception at the moment is that "I" is found in the doer of our khamma, and "I" is the "intender", the doer that can put mindfulness before the doer's self. One's self, or "I", has the capacity to look internally with clear comprehension. "I" have the capacity to cultivate correct view about the true nature of dhamma.

Is "no-I" not to be taken so extreme, as in "I do not exist?" Or does it suggest through contemplation: I do not exist the way I think I exist?

:candle:
User avatar
no mike
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:16 pm
Location: south carolina

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby Aloka » Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:47 pm

I wonder if this page from a Forest Sanga newsletter will be of any help : "Self View, Personality and Awareness" by Ajahn Sumedho.

excerpt:
Anatta is a practice for ordinary everyday life in which you notice when personality arises and when it ceases.


http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Ajahn_Sumedho_Personality.htm

There's also a talk on YouTube from Ajahn Jayasaro :"Anatta and the sense of Self"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YcTX9-Qcm0


:anjali:
Last edited by Aloka on Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby Sam Vara » Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:53 pm

no mike wrote:Since there is a doer doing khamma, is there a self? Is my khamma mine?

Is "no-I, no-me, not-mine" a creative model to help establish correct view of what "I" is not? Such as in: there is no true "I" found in or of one's impermanent worldly aggregates?

My perception at the moment is that "I" is found in the doer of our khamma, and "I" is the "intender", the doer that can put mindfulness before the doer's self. One's self, or "I", has the capacity to look internally with clear comprehension. "I" have the capacity to cultivate correct view about the true nature of dhamma.

Is "no-I" not to be taken so extreme, as in "I do not exist?" Or does it suggest through contemplation: I do not exist the way I think I exist?

:candle:


There is intention, and there is doing, but there is no need to derive an "intender" or a "doer" from these. If I could always put mindfulness before my self, then that particular bit of doing would be more impressive. But as it is, that ability is patchy. It comes and goes. It's unreliable. And as such, it's not worthy of being called "I", or my "self". In fact, on a bad day, my defilements would have a far greater claim...

Rather than ask yourself whether "I" exists or does not exist, you might find it more useful to ask whether there is anything in your experience that is really worthy of the title.
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby chownah » Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:37 pm

no mike,
"I do not exist" is explicitly called out as wrong view in the buddha's teachings.
The Buddha taught to have no doctrine of self at all....claiming that you do not exist is a doctrine of self and one should work to not hold this doctrine.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2411
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby Mkoll » Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:28 pm

Hi no mike,

When I get stuck in confusion about not-self, I go back to the perception of impermanence. Form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness arise and pass away. It works for me. YMMV.

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
-SN 22.59

:anjali:
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
-SN 12.61

Ex nihilo nihil fit.

Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 1000
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby SarathW » Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:41 pm

Just observe the ticking clock. Ask every minute is this same clock or a different clock.
I think it is neither same clock no different clock.
There is only ever changing phenomena.

You can’t look at the same clock twice.
:candle:
SarathW
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby no mike » Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:17 pm

Aloka wrote:I wonder if this page from a Forest Sanga newsletter will be of any help : "Self View, Personality and Awareness" by Ajahn Sumedho.

excerpt:
Anatta is a practice for ordinary everyday life in which you notice when personality arises and when it ceases.


http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Ajahn_Sumedho_Personality.htm

There's also a talk on YouTube from Ajahn Jayasaro :"Anatta and the sense of Self"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YcTX9-Qcm0


:anjali:


Thank you, for that article by Ajahn Sumedho, great reference :)

Still, leaves me wondering about this developing or uncovering mind, underneath this collection of impermanent worldly human stuff we tend to hold onto and call our personality or our "selves." There is a navigator at the helm. If enough skills are developed at navigation and boating skills, such as chart-reading, weather knowledge, tying knots, repairing sails, and seeing and understanding the stars, recognizing the nature of the sea for what it truly is with all it's waves and currents and depths and dangers, then this navigator can go from boat to boat, or remain on one for seven years, seven months, or seven days, and make it to the other shore. Surely, there would be a Pali term for this navigator, this helmsman, this rower of the boat?
User avatar
no mike
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:16 pm
Location: south carolina

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby Sam Vara » Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:26 pm

Surely, there would be a Pali term for this navigator, this helmsman, this rower of the boat?


Atta.

But having a term for something doesn't mean that it's real, does it?
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby kirk5a » Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:01 pm

no mike wrote:Still, leaves me wondering about this developing or uncovering mind, underneath this collection of impermanent worldly human stuff we tend to hold onto and call our personality or our "selves." There is a navigator at the helm. If enough skills are developed at navigation and boating skills, such as chart-reading, weather knowledge, tying knots, repairing sails, and seeing and understanding the stars, recognizing the nature of the sea for what it truly is with all it's waves and currents and depths and dangers, then this navigator can go from boat to boat, or remain on one for seven years, seven months, or seven days, and make it to the other shore. Surely, there would be a Pali term for this navigator, this helmsman, this rower of the boat?

It helps to remember the principle of appropriate attention, it is stress we are looking to alleviate, not grasp at existence/non-existence of whatsits.
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
...
"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1725
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby suttametta » Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:29 pm

no mike wrote:Since there is a doer doing khamma, is there a self? Is my khamma mine?

Is "no-I, no-me, not-mine" a creative model to help establish correct view of what "I" is not? Such as in: there is no true "I" found in or of one's impermanent worldly aggregates?

My perception at the moment is that "I" is found in the doer of our khamma, and "I" is the "intender", the doer that can put mindfulness before the doer's self. One's self, or "I", has the capacity to look internally with clear comprehension. "I" have the capacity to cultivate correct view about the true nature of dhamma.

Is "no-I" not to be taken so extreme, as in "I do not exist?" Or does it suggest through contemplation: I do not exist the way I think I exist?

:candle:


Existence and non-existence are beside the point. There is "I" to be found among the aggregates.
suttametta
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:40 am

Did you mean there is no l?

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 9630
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby suttametta » Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:46 am

mikenz66 wrote:Did you mean there is no l?

Mike


Sorry. There is NO I to be found in the five aggregates.
suttametta
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:22 am

suttametta wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Did you mean there is no l?

Mike


Sorry. There is NO I to be found in the five aggregates.

Yes, I certainly agree with that. As you say, some seem to worry about what I think are extraneous issues such as existence, non-existence, reality, or non-reality.

As "I" see it, the point is to drop the clinging to any of these concepts...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 9630
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:23 am

Aloka wrote:excerpt:
Anatta is a practice for ordinary everyday life in which you notice when personality arises and when it ceases.



Sorry, I haven't got time to look at the whole thing, but I wondered about the use of "personality" in this line. Is this referring to personality traits, and if so, don't these persist over a period of time? Or does it mean noticing when these traits become "visible"?
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 1767
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:26 am

Mkoll wrote:Hi no mike,

When I get stuck in confusion about not-self, I go back to the perception of impermanence. Form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness arise and pass away. It works for me. YMMV.

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
-SN 22.59

:anjali:


:goodpost:

Yes, I also find impermanence a useful way in.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 1767
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby no mike » Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:13 pm

Thank you, everyone, for the great responses :heart:

According to the teachings, are all, and all-of, beings annata? What of the "purified beings," or that which is purified "of" beings?

Is the liberated, purified being, actually incarcerated in this lifetime, subject to fall apart and dissolve with the break-up of the aggregates? That is, Is the "purified being" ephemeral and illusionary, or does it have qualities separate from annata?

If, by chance, a being were to land upon the other shore in this very lifetime, would the purified being, or all parts of, dissolve with body and aggregates, turning into beach, like dried or decomposing starfish, driftwood, or crushed shells? Or would there be shells on the beach, like those from a hatched egg, with tracks in the sand leading to a possible array of new directions?

-or- Is this a waste of attention to contemplate, perhaps unanswered directly in the Dhamma, since worldly impure beings are not of the developed mind and viewing abilities to conceptualize that which is beyond?

-or- Would my attention be more suited off this topic, since my focus should be on the path at hand, namely, the one which leads to the ending of suffering, by contemplating and dwelling ardent, clearly comprehending, and mindful, of what is happening moment to moment, regardless of abstract models and likely unresolvable (if not delusion-riddled) concepts of future states or planes of existence?

Understand, this Satipatthana is working to help alleviate suffering, it is working for me as I practice and watch as things unfold, even with humbled and imperfect beginnings. But if there is a pure, true mind or heart, already within us, either as a seed, or as unfined material mixed with coarse material, then it is very much a part of the here and now, and understanding comprehensible qualities of it's capacity, potential, reach, and longevity, seem relevant.

:heart: :heart: :heart:
User avatar
no mike
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:16 pm
Location: south carolina

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby kitztack » Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:36 pm

no mike wrote:

-or- Would my attention be more suited off this topic, since my focus should be on the path at hand, namely, the one which leads to the ending of suffering, by contemplating and dwelling ardent, clearly comprehending, and mindful, of what is happening moment to moment, regardless of abstract models and likely unresolvable (if not delusion-riddled) concepts of future states or planes of existence?



:heart: :heart: :heart:


:buddha1:
Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion.
Aflame, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs ......

Seeing thus, the disciple of the Noble One grows disenchanted. SN 35.28
kitztack
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:23 pm
Location: lalita ghat

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby chownah » Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:38 pm

Some things are relevant......more things seem relevant......even more things are thought to be relevant.....
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2411
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby suttametta » Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:07 pm

yeah no mike, buddha taught some stuff is beyond comprehension, like existence and non-existence, the origin of the universe, etc., so he advised to leave these aside, bc they are beside the point of dharma practice which is to get happy, worse yet, these ideas lead to a ton of sufferings.
suttametta
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?

Postby culaavuso » Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:29 pm

no mike wrote:Is the liberated, purified being, actually incarcerated in this lifetime, subject to fall apart and dissolve with the break-up of the aggregates? That is, Is the "purified being" ephemeral and illusionary, or does it have qualities separate from annata?


It could be useful to read SN 44.2
SN 44.2: Anuradha Sutta wrote:"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'?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
culaavuso
 
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Next

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests