If mind = brain

[Circle5]

What is it that makes the two states related/connected/comparable? the idea of a self (the agent who experience and who witnessed/got affected by the change).

Are you saying that with no self-view there is no experience of change?

There is no experiencer of change.

There is no experiencer of change even with a belief in a self existing in the organism. There never was a self to begin with, just the opinion that it is, based on lack of information.

[Saengnapha]

Are you saying that with no self-view there is no experience of change?

There is no experiencer of change.

There is no experiencer of change even with a belief in a self existing in the organism. There never was a self to begin with, just the opinion that it is, based on lack of information.

Even Advaita says this.

[Bundokji]

Satipatthana practice involves making such choices. We choose to pay attention to particular aspects of experience.

There is also the role of appropriate attention: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Actually in Theravada "experience" is represented by the five aggregates, the whole process. You have been focussing on the role of sanna ( perception/recognition )

Or you could say, that reading the satipatthana sutta directed your attention to particular aspects of experience. Mindfulness can be defined as constant remembrance to direct our attention to what is conducive to dispassion.

The Buddha said:

One is the quest for worldly gain, and quite another is the path to Nibbana. Clearly understanding this, let not the monk, the disciple of the Buddha, be carried away by worldly acclaim, but develop detachment instead.

My point was not focusing on the role of sanna, but as Ajahn Chah said:

Actually the real Dhamma, the gist of what I have been saying today, isn't so mysterious. Whatever you experience is simply form, simply feeling, simply perception, simply volition, and simply consciousness. There are only these basic qualities, where is there any certainty within them?

If we come to understand the true nature of things like this, lust, infatuation and attachment fade away. Why do they fade away? Because we understand, we know. We shift from ignorance to understanding. Understanding is born from ignorance, knowing is born from unknowing, purity is born from defilement. It works like this.

http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Not_Sure_Standard.php

[Bundokji]

So how does this relate to Buddhist practice? How does it relate to teachings on anicca and anatta?

Think of what brought us to the Buddha in terms of the first noble truth. We want to pass over from death to the deathless. From the conditioned to the unconditioned (nibbana)

[Saengnapha]

So how does this relate to Buddhist practice? How does it relate to teachings on anicca and anatta?

Think of what brought us to the Buddha in terms of the first noble truth. We want to pass over from death to the deathless. From the conditioned to the unconditioned (nibbana)

Once again, comparing two states. The comparative mind operates within a construction of time. How can thinking like this lead to freedom?

[Bundokji]

Once again, comparing two states. The comparative mind operates within a construction of time. How can thinking like this lead to freedom?

"Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. [7] Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

"No, lord."

"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

[auto]

So how does this relate to Buddhist practice? How does it relate to teachings on anicca and anatta?

Think of what brought us to the Buddha in terms of the first noble truth. We want to pass over from death to the deathless. From the conditioned to the unconditioned (nibbana)

Once again, comparing two states. The comparative mind operates within a construction of time. How can thinking like this lead to freedom?

You know how comparator works? there is no time, its you compare inputs and when reaction happen then you have something going on what then you can focus on and find the source.
One input is already in place, it is the other input you try out till there is a reaction.

[auto]

There is no experiencer of change.

There is no experiencer of change even with a belief in a self existing in the organism. There never was a self to begin with, just the opinion that it is, based on lack of information.

Even Advaita says this.

is going to save you?

There is a substance, concentration of particles. You don't know to avoid it and pull them to right place instead you willingly lead them into wrong channel or meridian in body and that will cause more things to do to get the same thing what could be done shortly.

thinking of there is no self may not save from woe.

woe=soul pain
---
for a gross example drinking alcohol will steal like three days to get back normal, don't die while drunk, drinking is dangerous. How long it takes t oget back to normal if get aroused by sensual content..

[Grigoris]

So how does this relate to Buddhist practice? How does it relate to teachings on anicca and anatta?

Think of what brought us to the Buddha in terms of the first noble truth. We want to pass over from death to the deathless. From the conditioned to the unconditioned (nibbana)

Once again, comparing two states. The comparative mind operates within a construction of time. How can thinking like this lead to freedom?

In Mahayana Buddhism we talk about The Two Truths: relative and ultimate. The other thing to be noted is that they are considered two aspects of a whole and thus not contradictory.

Morality and ethical conduct are based in relative truth: right/wrong, wholesome/unwholesome, good/evil. But ultimately there is not right/wrong, etc... because they lack essential characteristics (ie they are empty of s elf nature). It is due to the fact there all things are empty of self-nature that relative notions can arise.

[cappuccino]

karma remembers who you are, even if you become someone else…

that doesn't seem impersonal, it seems very personal…

[cappuccino]

There is no experiencer of change.

There is no experiencer of change even with a belief in a self existing in the organism. There never was a self to begin with, just the opinion that it is, based on lack of information.

Even Advaita says this.

No self is Advaita, not self is Buddhism.

[Mr Man]

karma remembers who you are, even if you become someone else…

So kamma is something separate from you? How does kamma hold memory?

[cappuccino]

karma remembers who you are, even if you become someone else…

So kamma is something separate from you? How does kamma hold memory?

saying karma is impersonal doesn't make sense

that's all

[mikenz66]

Krishnamurti post (largely) moved here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31934


Mike

[Grigoris]

karma remembers who you are, even if you become someone else…

Translation: "Action remembers who you are, even if you become somebody else".

What does that even mean? How can action (kamma) remember something?