Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:02 pm
I don't see how not having control over ones bodily functions, thoughts, views, etc.... is non self. could someone explain this to me, please? thank you, befriend
Buddhist forum about the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
- http://www.abhidhamma.org/Para2.htmExposition of Paramattha Dhammas II (Rúpa)
Rúpa paramattha dhamma is the reality which does not know anything 1. It arises and falls away because of conditions, just as in the case of citta and cetasika.
Rúpa paramattha dhamma includes 28 different kinds of rúpa. The meaning of rúpa, material phenomenon or matter, is different from matter in conventional sense, such as table, chair, or book. Among the 28 kinds of rúpa, there is one kind of rúpa, visible object or colour, citta can experience through the eyes. That which appears through the eyes is the only kind of rúpa which can be seen by citta. As regards the other 27 rúpas, these cannot be seen by citta, but they can be experienced through the appropriate doorways by the cittas concerned. Sound, for example, can be experienced by citta through the ears.
I think the answer to this is, no. There is no reason to try to understand something which does not happen. The Buddha taught about how views just arise based on mental conditions. That teaching is called dependent arising or dependent origination or dependent co-arising......take your pick, they all mean the same thing......many times people just type DO as a shortcut. It is rather complicated....it is the buddha's teaching to show how things don't happen because of a self but that they happen because conditions are right for them to happen with no self involved at all.befriend wrote:someone said to me, views are nonself, because we cant control them, if we could control them they would be self. we would say please go away view, and it would obey, or stay in my mind view, and it would stay. but this is not the case so views are non self, don't cling to it as being yours. do I have to understand how a self would be able to control views?
The notion that one's own volitional activities are totally uncontrollable is inherently self-contradictory, and an extreme philosophical view. Fortunately, that's not what the Buddha taught. I think Ven. Thanissaro presents a balanced perspective on the relationship of control, no-control and anatta.befriend wrote:not having control over ones bodily functions, thoughts, views, etc
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.htmlOur experience of the present moment is composed of three sorts of things: the results of past actions, present actions, and the results of present actions. We have no control over the results of past actions, but we do have some freedom — some element of control — in our choice of our present actions. The question of exactly how much control and how much freedom is something that we can discover only by trying to act as skillfully as we can with each moment. This is why the topic of skillful action is one of the Buddha's most basic teachings.