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?
Is no-I just a model for correct view?
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
I wonder if this page from a Forest Sanga newsletter will be of any help : "Self View, Personality and Awareness" by Ajahn Sumedho.
excerpt:
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Ajahn ... nality.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
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 ... nality.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
Last edited by Aloka on Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
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...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?
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.
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
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
"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
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
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.
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.
-SN 22.59"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."
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
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.
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.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
Thank you, for that article by Ajahn Sumedho, great referenceAloka 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 ... nality.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
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?
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
Atta.Surely, there would be a Pali term for this navigator, this helmsman, this rower of the boat?
But having a term for something doesn't mean that it's real, does it?
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
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.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?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html"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.
"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
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
Existence and non-existence are beside the point. There is "I" to be found among the aggregates.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?
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
Did you mean there is no l?
Mike
Mike
-
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
mikenz66 wrote:Did you mean there is no l?
Mike
Sorry. There is NO I to be found in the five aggregates.
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
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.suttametta wrote:mikenz66 wrote:Did you mean there is no l?
Mike
Sorry. There is NO I to be found in the five aggregates.
As "I" see it, the point is to drop the clinging to any of these concepts...
Mike
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
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"?Aloka wrote: excerpt:Anatta is a practice for ordinary everyday life in which you notice when personality arises and when it ceases.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Is no-I just a model for correct view?
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.
-SN 22.59"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."
Yes, I also find impermanence a useful way in.
Buddha save me from new-agers!