"Is there a Self?"

[mikenz66]

Hi [name redacted by admin],

You clearly have your own ideas on what is a fetter as you say that one who has attained Buddhahood is still fettered by the lower fetters as i understand it.

Blessed One have same lower fetters like ordinary persons on path to sainthood.

So because of this i am not interested in talking to you, in part because you seem to be doubling down on your views when refuted.

I suspect you may be misinterpreting Auto's statement. Perhaps Auto meant

Before his awakening the Buddha had the same fetters as any other ordinary person.

Auto, is that what you meant?


Mike

[User1249x]

Before his awakening the Buddha had the same fetters as any other ordinary person.

It would be nice if that was the case but i do not think that is what he meant. +1 on the question tho.

There are people here who belive that "one starts to practice 8FNP when one becomes a Sotapanna, nothing else is true, all else is worthless" so nothing really surprises me anymore.

[mikenz66]

Before his awakening the Buddha had the same fetters as any other ordinary person.

It would be nice if that was the case but i do not think that is what he meant. +1 on the question tho.
...

Well, it that was not what was meant, then a clarification from would Auto be useful. I see no point in arguing with a sentence that is so ambiguous.


Mike

[User1249x]

Well i hope i misunderstood and spoke out of turn and will apologize if that is the case.

[Circle5]

Hello!

So the quesion is: what did the Buddha mean when he denied "the self"?

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31350 Here there is an ongoing thread about this issue. (if you wish, you can post there your thoughts on this. I will certainly read them)

Thank you in advance!

I think everybody knows what we are speaking about. When it comes to humans above age 2 + 5 species of animals, there arises the though that there is a "me" that is seeing and experiencing things. The idea that there is this thing inside there, called a self. When we think about rocks or computer, nobody believes there is a self inside your car or things like that.

The appearence of this wrong conclusion in such organisms is based on lack of information about how things really work (ignorance) + the feeling of subjectivity. When the real way a human organisms works is understood, this opinion will arise no more and will be seen as a stupid opinion based on not knowing how things work. Similar to how a modern human would look at a bushman that claims cars are pushed by mysterious forces. And this is where the "supreme confidence" of stream entry comes from. If one would come to a modern human and tell him cars are pushed by tiger-forces, would the modern human have any doubt about things really working like that ? Would he seriously even consider such a stupid idea ? Or would he have supreme confidence that cars work because of the engine, the fuel, etc. ?

Buddha claims the dhamma is "clear, well exposed, inviting one to come and see". Weather it is correct or not one can only know by checking for himself. If he was correct then great, you now know an invaluable information. If he was wrong, then he was just another philosopher who got it wrong like so many others have been. The only way one can find out weather he was correct or not is through reading the higher dhamma section of the nikayas. (connected discourses, chapter 2,3,4)

[auto]

Hi [name redacted by admin],

You clearly have your own ideas on what is a fetter as you say that one who has attained Buddhahood is still fettered by the lower fetters as i understand it.

Blessed One have same lower fetters like ordinary persons on path to sainthood.

So because of this i am not interested in talking to you, in part because you seem to be doubling down on your views when refuted.

I suspect you may be misinterpreting Auto's statement. Perhaps Auto meant

Before his awakening the Buddha had the same fetters as any other ordinary person.

Auto, is that what you meant?


Mike

Enlightened beings own faculties causes affection, there is no difference between enlightened and non-enlightened beings in that regards.

The more perfected you are the earlier/higher realm you get affected, and thus also get free from taints before they affect lower realms.
The diseases and calamities can't progress or stop at some point.

If you have back ache then it is on lower realm. If you say I give you this bucket, then that talk is from lower realm.

[mikenz66]

Enlightened beings own faculties causes affection, there is no difference between enlightened and non-enlightened beings in that regards.

The more perfected you are the earlier/higher realm you get affected, and thus also get free from taints before they affect lower realms.
The diseases and calamities can't progress or stop at some point.

If you have back ache then it is on lower realm. If you say I give you this bucket, then that talk is from lower realm.

Thank you for clarifying that sounds like a very non-standard interpretation, which I find difficult to understand.


Mike

[auto]

Enlightened beings own faculties causes affection, there is no difference between enlightened and non-enlightened beings in that regards.

The more perfected you are the earlier/higher realm you get affected, and thus also get free from taints before they affect lower realms.
The diseases and calamities can't progress or stop at some point.

If you have back ache then it is on lower realm. If you say I give you this bucket, then that talk is from lower realm.

Thank you for clarifying that sounds like a very non-standard interpretation, which I find difficult to understand.


Mike

welcome,

Lower fetters are isolated by deep sleep, void. If to unfetter these hell will break loose for a while. If you get more enlightended then pain will be isolated by void.

[boundless]

Hello!

So the quesion is: what did the Buddha mean when he denied "the self"?

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31350 Here there is an ongoing thread about this issue. (if you wish, you can post there your thoughts on this. I will certainly read them)

Thank you in advance!

I think everybody knows what we are speaking about. When it comes to humans above age 2 + 5 species of animals, there arises the though that there is a "me" that is seeing and experiencing things. The idea that there is this thing inside there, called a self. When we think about rocks or computer, nobody believes there is a self inside your car or things like that.

The appearence of this wrong conclusion in such organisms is based on lack of information about how things really work (ignorance) + the feeling of subjectivity. When the real way a human organisms works is understood, this opinion will arise no more and will be seen as a stupid opinion based on not knowing how things work. Similar to how a modern human would look at a bushman that claims cars are pushed by mysterious forces. And this is where the "supreme confidence" of stream entry comes from. If one would come to a modern human and tell him cars are pushed by tiger-forces, would the modern human have any doubt about things really working like that ? Would he seriously even consider such a stupid idea ? Or would he have supreme confidence that cars work because of the engine, the fuel, etc. ?

Buddha claims the dhamma is "clear, well exposed, inviting one to come and see". Weather it is correct or not one can only know by checking for himself. If he was correct then great, you now know an invaluable information. If he was wrong, then he was just another philosopher who got it wrong like so many others have been. The only way one can find out weather he was correct or not is through reading the higher dhamma section of the nikayas. (connected discourses, chapter 2,3,4)

I'll go with the reading.

Thank you, again

[auto]

Noselfers might not understand that:

Not doing is still doing. It produces boring neutral heavy substance what rises to heart eventually when the pile is noticed.

A person who has no self(self is fettered) is someone who does enquiry on how to get gains because gains produce good feelings to rise to heart and life feels rewarding and pleasant.

---------------
Sense of self is gained by cultivating being mindful and aware, keeping senses empty of gains, there will appear a center in brain what can be pierced.
It is also with digestive system, it will produce insatiable craving, but if to notice and keep the discipline then there will appear a center in throat what can be pierced.

Noselfer need gains regularly in order not to fall into depression and stay sane. So he needs to do minor offences regularly to not get into rage and do unconsciously a grave offence.

Buddha is teaching those who has no self to get them away from evil destinies, like birth as animal or appearing in hell.

So:

The fetter model can be wrongly read.

Abandoned fetter at stream entry is identity view. If to think about it there rises sometimes an understanding. The risen meaning is different from learned meaning.
What arisen meaning says is that at stream entry when the fetter is abondened then idendity view is unfettered. When the fetter of doubt in enlightened being is gone then the doubt in enlightened beings is unfettered.
When you have self unfettered then you can grasp it, you clearly see it is not you, when to let it go then you are it, basically like your body gets the self as a power core and teh energy of it will start flow and fuel different parts of the body...

[auto]

Hello!

So the quesion is: what did the Buddha mean when he denied "the self"?

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31350 Here there is an ongoing thread about this issue. (if you wish, you can post there your thoughts on this. I will certainly read them)

Thank you in advance!

I think everybody knows what we are speaking about. When it comes to humans above age 2 + 5 species of animals, there arises the though that there is a "me" that is seeing and experiencing things. The idea that there is this thing inside there, called a self. When we think about rocks or computer, nobody believes there is a self inside your car or things like that.

The appearence of this wrong conclusion in such organisms is based on lack of information about how things really work (ignorance) + the feeling of subjectivity. When the real way a human organisms works is understood, this opinion will arise no more and will be seen as a stupid opinion based on not knowing how things work. Similar to how a modern human would look at a bushman that claims cars are pushed by mysterious forces. And this is where the "supreme confidence" of stream entry comes from. If one would come to a modern human and tell him cars are pushed by tiger-forces, would the modern human have any doubt about things really working like that ? Would he seriously even consider such a stupid idea ? Or would he have supreme confidence that cars work because of the engine, the fuel, etc. ?

Buddha claims the dhamma is "clear, well exposed, inviting one to come and see". Weather it is correct or not one can only know by checking for himself. If he was correct then great, you now know an invaluable information. If he was wrong, then he was just another philosopher who got it wrong like so many others have been. The only way one can find out weather he was correct or not is through reading the higher dhamma section of the nikayas. (connected discourses, chapter 2,3,4)

So why sense of self can't be valid as any other sense?
Self is as valid as light. It can residue in body as much as any other matter can.

Person thinking that cars are moving by some invisible force by gods power isn't different from person who paints cars to make them attractive. Anyone who buys things with money is on same grade, what makes you think that a carrot is somehow less than one 1000$ bill.

[auto]

Where did you see the doctrine of the lower fetter being taught like this by the Tathagata?
A baby who can not speak does not have the lower fetter then?

MN 64.
--
A dog who can't speak also has a lower fetter or worm. If someone tryis to take away your cup, you say this cup is mine then that is lower fetter. When you call your name and refer to yourself or call other person that is also lower fetter.

Point is you need awoke the self identity and use it as a vessel not lose it, if you say this is mine then it only rises for a moment, so maybe i am wrong because for a moment the self identity is not lower fetter...

I suggest you read that MN64 Sutta carefully again.

MN 53 PTS: M i 353
Sekha-patipada Sutta: The Practice for One in Training
...
Then the Blessed One — having spent most of the night instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging the Kapilavatthu Sakyans with a Dhamma talk — said to Ven. Ananda, "Ananda, speak to the Kapilavatthu Sakyans about the person who follows the practice for one in training. [2] My back aches. I will rest it."
...

I read now MN 63 too. So i got the point, speculative views are undeclared in order to lead a holy life. If you would know if there is a self or no self then you would not remove(uproot) the self view what is hidden(not apparent), like it is in infants.

[auto]

the Sam Harris Quote(taken from that article posted in OP):

It is an empirical fact that sustained meditation can result in a variety of insights that intelligent people regularly find intellectually credible and personally transformative. The problem, however, is that these insights are almost always sought and expressed in a religious context. One such insight is that the feeling we call “I”—the sense that there is a thinker giving rise to our thoughts, an experiencer distinct from the mere flow of experience—can disappear when looked for in a rigorous way. Our conventional sense of “self” is, in fact, nothing more than a cognitive illusion, and dispelling this illusion opens the mind to extraordinary experiences of happiness. This is not a proposition to be accepted on faith; it is an empirical observation, analogous to the discovery of one’s optic blind spots.

This is about seriousness difference between conventional and empirical observation. That the no-self discovery "Oh there is no self" is not to be taken lightly, it is the gate to super duper experiences.

Sam Harris has an impression that religious context is weak, accepted as faith only.. So he pretends to be atheist because of that i believe.

i searched motored if he is an atheist. Well the thought that where he thinks that praying to god is good for producing nice feelings. I agree, but there is more to it, because we have a place for God in our minds and it is a high place and if we focus on that point it is not empty or nonexistent.

Denial of god could as well caused by congitive dissonance.