...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by mal4mac »

barcsimalsi wrote: Something that is "Self" shall have complete control of itself which also means free from condition and able to go against natural phenomena that is composed of the 3 characteristic(annica, anatta and dukkha).
Where do you get the phrase go against natural phenomena? Please reference any suttas or other texts when you mention such controversial matters. In any case, this is a very vague phrase that in no way implies omnipotence.
- Mal
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by chownah »

mal4mac wrote:
chownah wrote: As to some thoughts that appear in your head; when you were born there were virtually NO thoughts in your head
How do you know this? We can't remember things we were thinking at birth, but perhaps that's because memory wasn't functioning.
chownah wrote: and your natural ability to be mentally impressed by your six sense media started accumulating data or impressions which were put into categories and networks which grew and grew all being built upon each other.......seems like it is not a stretch to suggest that ALL thoughts are conditioned by outside forces.
It seems a big stretch to me! Try reading some Kant, or modern Kantian philosophy of mind. The strong versions of this suggest that we come equipped at birth with most of the categories and networks needed to understand the world. If the Kantians are right, then there could be an awful lot of organised thought going on at birth. Even if you are right, wouldn't there be a lot of, perhaps less organised, thinking going on, to build those categories and networks?
You are correct in that I do not know for sure the extent of the thought process on newborns. For all I know a newborn is just seething with thoughts......but I have observed newborns and infants as they mature and they do a remarkably good imitation of starting with little to no thought processes and then having those processes develop as they mature......but I could be completely wrong.....anyone know of a site which talks about brain activity in newborns?

I think you have not carefully read my post.....what I posted is perfectly in agreement with the idea that a newborn has categories and networks already at birth although I am not making any statement as to their existence or nonexistence as it is not really essential to the ideas I am trying to express. Also, Kantian philosophy is OK I guess but I do not take it to be a serious source of wise knowledge.....whether a newborn has much in the way of thought processes is a matter of what happens inside a babies head and not a matter to be determined by philosophical speculation.
chownah
P.S. Here is a link that talks about brain activity in fetus and newborn......probably not the best reference...
http://www.livescience.com/8890-birth-f ... -idle.html
chownah
P.P.S. Here is another link I like because it seems to agree with me!

https://multcolib.org/parents/early-lit ... evelopment
Early experiences directly affect how the brain is "wired."
At birth, baby's brain is remarkably unfinished. Most of its 100 billion neurons are not yet connected in networks. Some neurons are programmed for specific functions-breathing and heartbeat, but most are not yet designated for tasks and are waiting for the experiences in the environment to determine their function. Connections are created by the sensory experiences-seeing, smelling, touching, and especially tasting, stimulate the growth of neural connections. Forming and reinforcing these connections are the key tasks of early brain development. By the age of three, a child's brain is twice as active as an adult's--and it stays that way throughout the first decade of life.

chownah
barcsimalsi
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:33 am

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by barcsimalsi »

mal4mac wrote:
barcsimalsi wrote: Something that is "Self" shall have complete control of itself which also means free from condition and able to go against natural phenomena that is composed of the 3 characteristic(annica, anatta and dukkha).
Where do you get the phrase go against natural phenomena? Please reference any suttas or other texts when you mention such controversial matters. In any case, this is a very vague phrase that in no way implies omnipotence.
Sorry no reference, it was based on my own understanding. :tongue: When an entity is free from condition, does it not mean omnipotence?
My earlier post was meant to answer the OP "what is unsatisfactory, that is not-self" hence if what is self, then it can always be satisfactory as a result of being omnipotence.
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by mal4mac »

chownah wrote:... whether a newborn has much in the way of thought processes is a matter of what happens inside a babies head and not a matter to be determined by philosophical speculation.
I agree with you, but you need a starting position. If you start from your position, which seems to be that of Hume, one is likely to look for mechanisms that enable structures to form due to the baby's interaction with the environment. Take Kant's viewpoint, and you are likely to assume the structures are already there. In any case, read into cognitive science, a little bit, and you you will see Kant is appreciated by many in the field:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/
https://multcolib.org/parents/early-lit ... evelopment
Early experiences directly affect how the brain is "wired."
At birth, baby's brain is remarkably unfinished. Most of its 100 billion neurons are not yet connected in networks. Some neurons are programmed for specific functions-breathing and heartbeat, but most are not yet designated for tasks and are waiting for the experiences in the environment to determine their function. Connections are created by the sensory experiences-seeing, smelling, touching, and especially tasting, stimulate the growth of neural connections. Forming and reinforcing these connections are the key tasks of early brain development. By the age of three, a child's brain is twice as active as an adult's--and it stays that way throughout the first decade of life.
I'm not interested enough in this matter to go searching for Kantians to provide alternative views, I guess they might question "waiting for the experiences in the environment to determine their function" and suggest "waiting for the brain to grow to its full potential", and downplay the role of environmental stimulus. But please don't try and rebut this observation... none of this, like most Western science & philosophy, is any help in alleviating my suffering; so I'd heartfully request we get off this track and get back to the thread - can we really meditate on the brain? If so, how?
- Mal
barcsimalsi
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:33 am

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by barcsimalsi »

lyndon taylor wrote: Remember the buddha didn't even deny the self, he denied that the self consisted of the 5 aggregates
That is true but he also taught that what is impermanent and unsatisfactory, that is not self. The question is can we find something that is permanent and satisfactory outside the five aggregates?
Even Nibbana is said to be not self.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by kirk5a »

reflection wrote:Hi,

I can promise you, I'm not changing my tune. It's just that things like this are is hard to convey on a conventional level. Therefore all the "quotation marks" :quote: that I include, which you seem to interpret literally instead of what I'm pointing at.

I could explain how a jhana is fabricated and can be intended without any control or will in them, but I won't because that is getting off topic. Also I won't because I am not trying to further a claim. I'm just saying meditation shows the reality of things, not arguments or suttas. Perhaps it'll show people what I mean with the will saying "I decided that" after the decision has already been made. Or "I think that" happens after the thought. And then this "I decide/control things"-view may start to unravel in people. Especially in meditation where the will and control is starting to fade away - which I don't think is all that rare for people to experience at least to some degree.

:anjali:
I can only read what you say, not guess at what you're pointing at.
reflection wrote: all actions happen by themselves and the will that makes the "decision" comes later, if it does come.
Your further remarks don't really clarify whether you believe the above or not. You said "all actions." Now you're pointing at the instance of internally saying "I decided that" after the decision. So I really don't know whether you still mean "all actions" or not. Because the actual decision is itself an action. It is intending, which is kamma. Which, it sounds like you are allowing occurs before the action which is a result of that decision. But then, that means the action did not happen "by itself" - it happened as a result of the decision.
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... tml#part-5
"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
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by reflection »

I don't mean "by itself" as if there is no underlying reason. There is an underlying reason, a cause. But that's exactly the thing; because actions happen because of a cause, they don't happen because of a self that has a free choice. So with "by itself" I mean without a self, without someone in control, not some self does the action, but the action does itself.

:anjali:
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by lyndon taylor »

Can you point me to the scripture where the Buddha says we have no free choice, and everything we do or say is controlled by kamma?
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by reflection »

Why keep going back to suttas always? Of course, they are important, but there is more to the practice than suttas. Suttas are not the end of things, they have to be in light of experience, in light of the eightfold path. As I've said, people will interpret the suttas according to their view. So if we want to find out what is the right view, we have to look beyond the suttas.

Either way, first I want to make clear I don't say everything is by kamma.

Then, if you interpret "sankhara is not self" as I do, the references are all over the place. For example here:
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html
In other words, one can't 'have it be thus' of "choice/determination/volition/thought/etc" - all that falls under the aggregate of sankhara.

As a background to sankhara (here "determinations )":
The aggregate of volitional formations comprises all kinds of volition. It includes not merely those that are kammically potent, but also those that are kammic results and those that are kammically inoperative.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_43.html

I could also ask, where does the Buddha say there is a free will? All quotes that on the surface seem to say so, can also be interpreted as conventional language, as a "being" that makes a choice, not a self. But I won't ask this because, as I said before, even if your read 100 suttas it will not be convincing. The meditation I spoke about before will already give more information than any sutta will ever do.

Hope this clears up my position a bit.

:anjali:
Last edited by reflection on Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by kirk5a »

reflection wrote:I don't mean "by itself" as if there is no underlying reason. There is an underlying reason, a cause. But that's exactly the thing; because actions happen because of a cause, they don't happen because of a self that has a free choice. So with "by itself" I mean without a self, without someone in control, not some self does the action, but the action does itself.
The action does itself? A lot of confusion could arise as a result of perceiving that way.

"Intending, one does kamma (action) by way of body, speech, and mind" is the accurate outlook, as explained with perfect clarity by the Buddha himself. Can show us anywhere that the Buddha says "the action does itself"?
"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: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by kirk5a »

By the way, having a certain meditation experience or other is not a guarantee of right view. Meditation can be itself be integrally influenced by a whole host of perceptions, views, and interpretations, and give rise to a whole new set of perceptions, views and interpretations.
"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
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by reflection »

kirk5a wrote:By the way, having a certain meditation experience or other is not a guarantee of right view. Meditation can be itself be integrally influenced by a whole host of perceptions, views, and interpretations, and give rise to a whole new set of perceptions, views and interpretations.
Of course, that I don't deny. But meditation is important. It is the way to seeing things as they are (from samadhi comes wisdom) and it is part of the path for a reason. But when the meditation goes totally out of range of the willpower, there is little to be mistaken there because it will be very obvious. (although delusion may still deny the implications)

I'll leave it at this because we keep talking past each other. Quotes that you interpret as a metaphysical statement about reality I simply see as a quote on conventional level. For example:
"Intending, one does"
What is the "one" referred to here? You seem to think it is some self-control or something, I think it simply conventionally refers to the being that is itself a process without self.

So this way we could keep quoting suttas for ages and not make any step on the path.

I'll leave the last word to you and Lyndon.

:anjali:
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by Alex123 »

reflection wrote:
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html
In other words, one can't 'have it be thus' of "choice/determination/volition/thought/etc" - all that falls under the aggregate of sankhara.

Please note: "And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus" .

It might mean nothing more than we can't stop affliction (aging, sickness, death, cognizing unpleasant and undesirable).
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by kirk5a »

reflection wrote: "Intending, one does"
What is the "one" referred to here? You seem to think it is some self-control or something, I think it simply conventionally refers to the being that is itself a process without self.
So you agree then, that the being acts. And possesses the elements of initiating, exertion, effort, steadfastness, persistence, and endeavoring. As explained by AN 6.38.
"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
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: ...what is unsatisfactory, that is not self...

Post by chownah »

kirk5a wrote:
reflection wrote: "Intending, one does"
What is the "one" referred to here? You seem to think it is some self-control or something, I think it simply conventionally refers to the being that is itself a process without self.
So you agree then, that the being acts. And possesses the elements of initiating, exertion, effort, steadfastness, persistence, and endeavoring. As explained by AN 6.38.
From what I've seen AN 6.38 does not mention beings. It mentions elements or principles which I think are different from beings. For instance sometimes the Buddha talks about a liquid element, not a liquid being....etc.
chownah
Post Reply