"Is there a Self?"

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:12 am

boundless wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:03 am

Yeah, it is difficult to explain the concept when in fact it is not very clear even to me. My idea is that according to Buddhism at a level of analysis of reality there are indeed “beings”. There is indeed a “self”, which is the empirical self. So there is a “unifying” point in our experience… but only because we do not really see reality as It really is. At a “coarse level” there is indeed the unity. In the same way at a “macroscopic level” water has indeed a temperature (but at atomic level there is no temperature, so “temperature” is not a property that has meaning to all scales). But maybe (see also the second and third paragraphs of the answer to SDC) at awakening we “see” the “unobstructed consciousness”: a consciousness without a “perceived center”, with no perspective.
Thanks for the latest input. I have no problems with there being a "self" at some level, according to Buddhism; indeed, if anyone were to deny that, it would probably warn me against delving any further into what was being said by them. I do have a difficulty, however, with the idea that characteristics of that empirical self - in particular, its boundedness, and its particularistic unity (i.e. that certain phenomena are unified by means of my perception, whereas others are not) - are the result of not seeing things "as they really are". We could, of course, postulate the existence of anything as a means to reconcile apparently contradictory bits of theory, but the problem with this one is that it begins to look a lot like panpsychism, Hinduism, or something similar. If in reality, or even at another level of reality (comparable to the atomic level in your analogy) consciousness were not so bounded and particularistically unified, then it would be a universal consciousness. I'm not saying there's not such a thing, of course, but it doesn't sit well with what the Buddha taught.

Although the analogy with waves etc. is useful for the purposes of illustration, I don't think we can reason anything further from it. Waves, water molecules, atoms, etc., are all objects of consciousness within space and time. We can say that one comprehends or subsumes another when talking about such objects, but the unity of our consciousness is not one of them.

auto
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by auto » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:52 am

boundless wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:03 am
auto wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:06 pm


The unconditioned is beyond our grasp because it rises autonomously. You can't will it happen, it is empty of self. From a self-view these sensations rise randomly, by change and probably.
In order to see something new, you need get lost first. These sensations are everfresh, new.



Hello auto,

I agree that it is empty of a self. But I do not think that the unconditioned can be said to "rise", since "rising" is a temporal activity. IMO it being timeless is "indipendent".

"In order to see something new, you need get lost first", yeah true ;)

:anjali:
Hi,
Unconditioned phenomena are different from realism.
Realism is what you measure has a value or state. But with unconditional phenomena, there is no value before measurement.

If you hit your toe against the wall, does the pain exist in the wall or in the toe?

boundless
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by boundless » Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:38 pm

aflatun wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:21 pm


Nice, thanks for that!
boundless wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:19 pm
By the way thanks for sharing the dialogue ;)
Of course, I highly recommend his talks, rather then listen to music I often listen to those, over and over and over...
Yeah, I understand he is very interesting :smile:
aflatun wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:21 pm

It's OK to think too much, we all do it! We can take this up elsewhere if you like as I don't want to bomb the thread any more then I already have, but in very general terms I agree with you, those seem to be the tendencies of the respective traditions, especially if our baseline for Mahayana is some forms of East Asian Buddhism, especially modern incarnations thereof like Suzuki (If we looked at Classical Indian Mahayana I think we would come away with a different picture!): But I find when you take it on an author by author basis comparisons become more meaningful and common ground more obvious.
Regarding the "thiniking too much" problem... as I said in my introduction I am only a student of Buddhism, for now (I cannot consider myself a "buddhist"*. Yet I am very drawn to Buddhism and find a lot of inspiration in it - I hope this is not a problem for my staying here :embarassed: ). But it really helps to see that in fact "thinking too much" is quite common here, even among who is more advanced in the practice and in faith, so to speak.

Regarding East Asian Buddhism I agree that it is generally more "life-affirming" than other forms of it. At the same time however I find concepts like "non-abiding Nirvana" (which is accepted in all forms of Mahayana afaik) quite difficult to reconcile to what we find in the Suttas. But I agree that it is better to discuss it in an other thread! (actually, I thought to open one about this issue in the DharmaWheel forum).

:anjali:

*Well... according to this quiz https://thedhamma.com/areyoubuddhist.htm, in some sense I am a "buddhist" :tongue:
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:12 am


Thanks for the latest input. I have no problems with there being a "self" at some level, according to Buddhism; indeed, if anyone were to deny that, it would probably warn me against delving any further into what was being said by them. I do have a difficulty, however, with the idea that characteristics of that empirical self - in particular, its boundedness, and its particularistic unity (i.e. that certain phenomena are unified by means of my perception, whereas others are not) - are the result of not seeing things "as they really are". We could, of course, postulate the existence of anything as a means to reconcile apparently contradictory bits of theory, but the problem with this one is that it begins to look a lot like panpsychism, Hinduism, or something similar. If in reality, or even at another level of reality (comparable to the atomic level in your analogy) consciousness were not so bounded and particularistically unified, then it would be a universal consciousness. I'm not saying there's not such a thing, of course, but it doesn't sit well with what the Buddha taught.

Although the analogy with waves etc. is useful for the purposes of illustration, I don't think we can reason anything further from it. Waves, water molecules, atoms, etc., are all objects of consciousness within space and time. We can say that one comprehends or subsumes another when talking about such objects, but the unity of our consciousness is not one of them.
Yeah, I agree!

Regarding the wave analogy, I agree that it has its limits. But if you apply it to "the percieved world" ("loka"), then IMO it is better. In my view if there is a "self" of sorts, then also the "(its) world" must be unified. But if it is not unified, then to posit a "self" existing at "all levels" is quite problemtic (according to Advaita, the Self is "one", so the entire "ocean", so to speak is "unified". IMO Buddhism accepts the idea that we are like waves in the ocean, but sees the ocean as not a "single unifieid thing"!).

Anyway, the trascendental argument is the strongest one. And in fact I do not think that it can be really refuted. It is here that "faith" comes in :thinking: (and as I said to aflatun I am not really strong in faith, being still a "seeker" :embarassed: (yet))

:anjali:
auto wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:52 am



Hi,
Unconditioned phenomena are different from realism.
Realism is what you measure has a value or state. But with unconditional phenomena, there is no value before measurement.

If you hit your toe against the wall, does the pain exist in the wall or in the toe?
Hi,

I admit that it is unclear to me what you are suggesting. Anyway I try to answer.

Regarding the question. I think that answering "in the toe" is better (to be more precise it "arises" in consciousness, as a result of the "change" we percieve in the toe). But I say that answering "in the wall" is completely wrong!

So are you suggesting that the "unconditioned" exists as a "state of mind" freed form contidioning? A state of mind, without a percieved "center" (so no "sense of self"), maybe :thinking:


:anjali:

auto
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by auto » Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:53 pm

boundless wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:38 pm
auto wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:52 am



Hi,
Unconditioned phenomena are different from realism.
Realism is what you measure has a value or state. But with unconditional phenomena, there is no value before measurement.

If you hit your toe against the wall, does the pain exist in the wall or in the toe?
Hi,

I admit that it is unclear to me what you are suggesting. Anyway I try to answer.

Regarding the question. I think that answering "in the toe" is better (to be more precise it "arises" in consciousness, as a result of the "change" we percieve in the toe). But I say that answering "in the wall" is completely wrong!

So are you suggesting that the "unconditioned" exists as a "state of mind" freed form contidioning? A state of mind, without a percieved "center" (so no "sense of self"), maybe :thinking:


:anjali:
Things are conditioned because of attachment. Condition is nonexistent, superposition. During the contact an attachment ceases to be. If you hit the wall then it depends if you do it knowingly or you did it accidently.

If you do accidently then that is unconditioned phenomena. If you do it knowingly, then you can't hurt yourself unless you are pretty deluded.

boundless
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by boundless » Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:50 am

auto wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:53 pm

Things are conditioned because of attachment. Condition is nonexistent, superposition. During the contact an attachment ceases to be. If you hit the wall then it depends if you do it knowingly or you did it accidently.

If you do accidently then that is unconditioned phenomena. If you do it knowingly, then you can't hurt yourself unless you are pretty deluded.
Thank you for the elucidation!

:anjali:

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by Circle5 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:19 pm

boundless wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:59 pm
Circle5 wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:29 am
...
Hello Circle 5,

See for example this article by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental/. I find difficulties to explain it. However I find the "eye" analogy very interesting.

Anyway I try to summarize the argument with the "eye-visual field" analogy. When our eyes are open and functioning we have the experience of the visual field. However if we search to "find" the eyes as part of our visual field, we fail because at best we can experience seen eyes, like in a reflection in a mirror. At the same this visual field is "private" in the sense it can be "marked" by an identifier (i.e. "my" visual field, "your" visual field etc). This "unity" seems to be correlated to something that makes this "visual field", "this particular visual field". All my vision therefore is correlated with "something" that makes them part of the totality of "my" visual experiences. When the eyes do not function or are closed we do not experience a visual field. Logically speaking (I know of course the Sutta's take on this with the concept of contact etc) we cannot even say that the "opening" of the eyes causes the visual "field" since correlation does not imply causation. Logically we can only say that "when eyes are open and functioning, there is the visual experience", i.e. the "eye" and "its visual field" are associated, correlated etc.

In the same way our experience is private. Hence there must be something that is correlated all "my" particular experiences to make them part of all "my" experience. As the eye-visual field analogy however we cannot find "what" gives the mark of "myness" to all our experience. Therefore this unifying "factor" of all my experience cannot be found by examining the objects of our experiences. The "spaghetti monster" instead is a possible occurance of our experience. The "self"/"subject" and its "experience"/"object" are associated, coordinated. We cannot say that the "subject" causes its "object", but instead that the "object" is there whenever there is a "subject". So the subject in reality in this view is not even a "controller" of its experience, but simply is the "unifying" principle of its experience. Schopenhauer as reported here (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self ... scSelfCons) wrote “that the subject should become an object for itself is the most monstrous contradiction ever thought of”. However the simple analysis of our experience cannot be used to "deduce" the subject, rather must "deduce" it as what render it "unified".

But of course, this argument cannot IMO strictly speaking "prove" the existence of the unifying principle (also because there is the assumption that our experience is "unified") that renders experience "my experience". But in the same way the arguments by the analysis of our experience cannot "disprove" it simply because it is already posited that it cannot be "found" in experience.

I hope to have outlined the difference :anjali:
Hello Again. First of all, You are not experiencing "seeing eyes". There is no-one experiencing the subjective experience (which is a feeling/perception/consciousness etc. tainted by conceit in buddhist terms). When you say "I am experiencing a visual perception" - this makes an underlying statement that there is a self experiencing this visual perception. The way Buddist speak is "there is a visual perception arising". Sure, in day to day use of language, one can word things in that way because of language conventions, but one can also be speaking in such a way because of having an underlying assumption that there is a self. Starting from this underlying assumption, an assuption based on the feeling of subjectivity that exists, he will then go on and make all kinds of wrong arguments that seem smart, but are based on a wrong foundation and are simply circular arguments. I am not saying you did this, i am just pointing out how thinking of things in such a way can go wrong.

As for the argument itself: A computer or a car or an aiplane is also an united entity. The data popping up on an airplaine computer display is correlated with parts and pieces of the engine, and with what is happening to them. It is not the data of another airplane, it is the data of a particular airplane. Therefore, the airplane is subject to all these things that are going on, all these things that his display. These things belong to him, they do not belong to another aiplane. There is an underlying unity inside this airplane, there is no doubt an "unifying principle". The spagghete monster can be detected and displayed on the airplane radar, but it is not part of the airplane, it is just an object perceived by the airplane.

But still, there is something that makes people think there might be a self inside them, but not inside an airplane. And when they think really hard about it, they all fall down on the same argument, as Buddha said. The argument about the feeling of subjectivity. If there would be no self, why would this feeling of subjectivity arise in the first place ? How could it possibly arise otherwise ?

And here is where the big trickery comes into play. Here is where there is some explaining needed.

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by Circle5 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:06 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:12 am
Thanks for the latest input. I have no problems with there being a "self" at some level, according to Buddhism; indeed, if anyone were to deny that, it would probably warn me against delving any further into what was being said by them. I do have a difficulty, however, with the idea that characteristics of that empirical self - in particular, its boundedness, and its particularistic unity (i.e. that certain phenomena are unified by means of my perception, whereas others are not) - are the result of not seeing things "as they really are". We could, of course, postulate the existence of anything as a means to reconcile apparently contradictory bits of theory, but the problem with this one is that it begins to look a lot like panpsychism, Hinduism, or something similar. If in reality, or even at another level of reality (comparable to the atomic level in your analogy) consciousness were not so bounded and particularistically unified, then it would be a universal consciousness. I'm not saying there's not such a thing, of course, but it doesn't sit well with what the Buddha taught.

Although the analogy with waves etc. is useful for the purposes of illustration, I don't think we can reason anything further from it. Waves, water molecules, atoms, etc., are all objects of consciousness within space and time. We can say that one comprehends or subsumes another when talking about such objects, but the unity of our consciousness is not one of them.
Indeed, the trickery about no-self is not about seeing things like a big ocean of conditionality or things of that sort. The trickery lies somewhere else.

I also do not see where you got the idea that Buddhism claims there is no unity between the 5 aggregates. That's simply not the explanation about no-self and about how things really work. Of course the 5 aggregates are unified or "governed by a unifying principle". Same as the metal, the plastic, etc. of an airplane have an "unifying principle". Nobody can argue that the wing of Airforce One airplane is actually the wing of another airplane or does not belong to any airplane at all (in a conventional sense). That wing belong to Airforce One. And yet, Airfoce One does not have a self.

A good thing to contemplate are animals (except 5 of them) and children below the age of 2. A "sense of self" is not developed in these organisms. Imagine how life is for these organisms. There is just suffering that arises, same as a window would pup up on a computer screen. Because of conditions, there is suffering that arises. And that is all, just suffering arising, with no me or "my suffering" or any such feelings and perceptions arising. Spend 5 minutes to contemplate how things work for such organisms.

Of course the trickery does not lie here either. The sutta with the trickery in question was probably never posted on DW. As far as I remember, it was only posted by SarahW on Suttacentral one time.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by Sam Vara » Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:48 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:06 pm

I also do not see where you got the idea that Buddhism claims there is no unity between the 5 aggregates. That's simply not the explanation about no-self and about how things really work.
You don't need to see where I got the idea from, as I don't have that idea. I'm afraid that you are still responding to your own completely erroneous interpretation of what I am saying.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by SDC » Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:22 pm

I am incredibly sorry for the delay in posting. Very busy.
boundless wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:03 am
Hello SDC,
After some reflection (not really enough :thinking: I am still quite confused BTW ), these are my "comments". So, “reality” is a continuous process of arising and ceasing. We can see it in our breathing, for example. The cyclic idea of the universe suggests that even “everything” is such a process of arising and ceasing, re-arising and re-ceasing etc Interestingly this idea was quite popular in ancient cultures: even many Greeks thought that our universe was a beginning-less and end-less cyclical process. And in fact, as Parmenides said if some-thing really “was”, then it could not change.
I still have a very soft spot for Parmenides. :heart:

Take SN 22.37/38. In regard to the five aggregates:
...an arising is manifest, a ceasing is manifest, a persisting-while-changing is manifest.
If everything was "in flux" there would be no point whereby arising or ceasing could be discerned, because any point in such a scheme would be "in motion" as either an arising or ceasing, i.e. not a point at all. Only from a position of persistence or endurance - less motion - in relation to more motion would permit motion to be seen. That is why I feel that the doctrine of flux must be denialistic in its nature, because it fundamentally surrenders any concept of that position, while at the same time overlooking (ignoring) the fact that it must be there in order to have any grounds for denial in the first place, i.e. motion is denied, conceived as a misperception. In short, there is SELF: a position beyond this conceived nature of flux.

In other words, experience is "direction towards" that which appears, there is a perpendicularity towards things. The confusion comes from searching for the point of origin of that directionality and furthermore, assuming ownership over it. Hence the reason why it is almost natural to assume an existence outside the arising of things. The transcendentalists elegantly calculated this aspect out of that arisen nature given that you can keep moving the goal posts into infinity, but as far as the Buddha was concerned, that negative aspect of experience was just another feature of the landscape that shared that arisen nature.
Ñāṇavīra Thera wrote:A determination [sankhara] is essentially negative—'Omnis determinatio est negatio' said Spinoza --, and a negative, a negation, only exists as a denial of something positive. The positive thing's existence is asserted by the negative in the very act of denying it (just as atheism, which exists as a denial of theism, is evidence that theism exists); and its essence (or nature) is defined by the negative in stating what it is not (if we know what atheism is we shall know at once what theism is). A negative thus determines both the existence and the essence of a positive. A Note on PS, footnote (f)
Just some food for thought. :smile:

pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by pulga » Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:06 pm

Ven. NN wrote: You're just witnessing a phenomenon, an arisen phenomenon of destruction. And that has arisen. So that's what I mean when I say before, or I say often...things are not impermanent because you see them cease. Things are impermanent because they have arisen in the first place. So their manifestation means, that's why they're not in your control. Because they are manifested. You can't even conceive "you" creating anything, "you" manifesting anything. Impossible. And even when you think of you creating something, if you look closely, whatever you're kind of working with in your mind in terms of you...that was given beforehand. So you always come in second.
Cakkhuñcāvuso, paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ, tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi, yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti, yaṃ papañceti tatonidānaṃ purisaṃ papañ­ca­saññā­saṅ­khā samudācaranti atī­tā­nāga­ta­pac­cup­pan­nesu cak­khu­viññeyyesu rūpesu.

Dependent on eye and form, eye consciousness arises. The coincidence of the three is contact. With contact there is feeling. What one feels one perceives. What he perceives, that he thinks about. What he thinks about, that he diversifies. With what he has diversified as the source, calculations about perceptions of diversification occupy him with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable by the eye. MN 18
Ven. Ñanavira wrote:This does not mean that what is preferred will necessarily be obtained; for each aspect, actual or possible, is presented with its own arbitrary inertia at the most immediate level of experience. Reflexive intention can only modify the given state of affairs. (Strictly, [there is] an arbitrary 'weightage' prior to (i.e. below) immediate intention; this is 'discovered' in a perspective by consciousness and immediate (involuntary) intention is a modification of it (and of that perspective); then reflexive intention is a modification of all this.) But, other things being equal, the pleasant dominates the unpleasant ('pleasant' and 'unpleasant' being understood here in their widest possible sense). -- SN Cetana, emphasis added
When Ven. N. Nyanamoli speaks of the lack of control that undermines the notion of self, I take it that he is referring to the "immediate (involuntary)" intentionality -- driven by instinctual feeling -- that orients and gives meaning to the pre-reflexive delineated whole of our present situation. The sense of mastery and control would come into play when one reflectively considers "modifying" the situation one finds oneself in by considering the possibilities that define -- i.e. determine -- it. Of course it isn't the reflecting itself that is the problem, but the appropriation of such reflection.
Ven. Ñanavira wrote:The subject is not simply a negative in relation to the positive object: it (or he) is master over the object, and is thus a kind of positive negative, a master who does not appear explicitly but who, somehow or other, nevertheless exists. It is this master whom the puthujjana, when he engages in reflexion, is seeking to identify—in vain! This delusive mastery of subject over object must be rigorously distinguished from the reflexive power of control or choice that is exercised in voluntary action by puthujjana and arahat alike. -- SN Attā
Consider also:
Ven. Ñanavira wrote:You say that, as far as you see it, the arahat's experience functions automatically. By this I presume that you mean it functions without any self or agent or master to direct it. But I do not say otherwise. All that I would add is that this automatically functioning experience has a complex teleological structure. -- [L. 149 | 159] 10 January 1962

auto
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by auto » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:20 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:06 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:12 am
Thanks for the latest input. I have no problems with there being a "self" at some level, according to Buddhism; indeed, if anyone were to deny that, it would probably warn me against delving any further into what was being said by them. I do have a difficulty, however, with the idea that characteristics of that empirical self - in particular, its boundedness, and its particularistic unity (i.e. that certain phenomena are unified by means of my perception, whereas others are not) - are the result of not seeing things "as they really are". We could, of course, postulate the existence of anything as a means to reconcile apparently contradictory bits of theory, but the problem with this one is that it begins to look a lot like panpsychism, Hinduism, or something similar. If in reality, or even at another level of reality (comparable to the atomic level in your analogy) consciousness were not so bounded and particularistically unified, then it would be a universal consciousness. I'm not saying there's not such a thing, of course, but it doesn't sit well with what the Buddha taught.

Although the analogy with waves etc. is useful for the purposes of illustration, I don't think we can reason anything further from it. Waves, water molecules, atoms, etc., are all objects of consciousness within space and time. We can say that one comprehends or subsumes another when talking about such objects, but the unity of our consciousness is not one of them.
Indeed, the trickery about no-self is not about seeing things like a big ocean of conditionality or things of that sort. The trickery lies somewhere else.

I also do not see where you got the idea that Buddhism claims there is no unity between the 5 aggregates. That's simply not the explanation about no-self and about how things really work. Of course the 5 aggregates are unified or "governed by a unifying principle". Same as the metal, the plastic, etc. of an airplane have an "unifying principle". Nobody can argue that the wing of Airforce One airplane is actually the wing of another airplane or does not belong to any airplane at all (in a conventional sense). That wing belong to Airforce One. And yet, Airfoce One does not have a self.

A good thing to contemplate are animals (except 5 of them) and children below the age of 2. A "sense of self" is not developed in these organisms. Imagine how life is for these organisms. There is just suffering that arises, same as a window would pup up on a computer screen. Because of conditions, there is suffering that arises. And that is all, just suffering arising, with no me or "my suffering" or any such feelings and perceptions arising. Spend 5 minutes to contemplate how things work for such organisms.

Of course the trickery does not lie here either. The sutta with the trickery in question was probably never posted on DW. As far as I remember, it was only posted by SarahW on Suttacentral one time.
Sentient being whom the idendity view hasn't arisen yet exist as a lower fetter. A person who says this is mine, it is me, this hand is mine.. that is lower fetter.
Idendity view arises when following the correct path and then identity view is used as an escape pod and then the escape pod is let go.

Read MN 64 https://suttacentral.net/en/mn64
“There is a path, Ānanda, a way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters;
that someone, by relying on that path, on that way, shall know and see and abandon the five lower fetters—this is possible. Just as, when there is a great tree standing possessed of heartwood, it is possible that someone shall cut out its heartwood by cutting through its bark and sapwood, so too, there is a path…this is possible.

rightviewftw
Posts: 1633
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:31 pm

auto wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:20 pm
A person who says this is mine, it is me, this hand is mine.. that is lower fetter.
Majjhima Nikāya 64 The Greater Discourse to Mālunkyāputta https://suttacentral.net/en/mn64
...
“Bhikkhus, do you remember the five lower fetters as taught by me?”

When this was said, the venerable Mālunkyāputta replied: “Venerable sir, I remember the five lower fetters as taught by the Blessed One.”

“But, Mālunkyāputta, in what way do you remember the five lower fetters as taught by me?”

“Venerable sir, I remember identity view as a lower fetter taught by the Blessed One. I remember doubt as a lower fetter taught by the Blessed One. I remember adherence to rules and observances as a lower fetter taught by the Blessed One. I remember sensual desire as a lower fetter taught by the Blessed One. I remember ill will as a lower fetter taught by the Blessed One. It is in this way, venerable sir, that I remember the five lower fetters as taught by the Blessed One.”

“Mālunkyāputta, to whom do you remember my having taught these five lower fetters in that way? Would not the wanderers of other sects confute you with the simile of the infant? For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to identity view lies within him.
...
The Blessed One said this:

“Here, Ānanda, an untaught ordinary person who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, abides with a mind obsessed and enslaved by identity view, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from the arisen identity view; and when that identity view has become habitual and is uneradicated in him, it is a lower fetter. He abides with a mind obsessed and enslaved by doubt…by adherence to rules and observances …by sensual lust …by ill will, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen ill will; and when that ill will has become habitual and is uneradicated in him, it is a lower fetter.
...
Last edited by rightviewftw on Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

auto
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by auto » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:39 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:31 pm
auto wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:20 pm
A person who says this is mine, it is me, this hand is mine.. that is lower fetter.
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...

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn64
“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent…as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element…This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

rightviewftw
Posts: 1633
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:48 pm

auto wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:39 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:31 pm
auto wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:20 pm
A person who says this is mine, it is me, this hand is mine.. that is lower fetter.
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."
...

auto
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: "Is there a Self?"

Post by auto » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:07 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:48 pm
auto wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:39 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:31 pm

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

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 51 guests