How can you apply chariot simile to a shadow?

[SarathW]

How can you apply chariot simile to a shadow?
In the following video, (Sinhalese language) Ven Suddasana argues that it is not appropriate to divide something exist to prove that it does not exist.
We should be looking to the cause of the object rather than the components of the object.
Shadow is the result of the tree.
The same way tree is the result of the seed, earth water, and the light.
It is not appropriate to separate the tree into leaves, branches, bark and root etc prove that there is no tree exist.
He said that is Ucchedavada.
I think it is inappropriate to say there is five aggregate hence there is no being.

[SarathW]

See my previous post regarding chariot simile.
What is Nihilism according to Buddhist teaching?

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=27795&hilit=chariot

[chownah]

I think that the chariot simile is not meant to show that the chariot does not exist. I think that the chariot simile is meant to show that the chariot does not have a self.
I think if you want to discuss a simile it would be good if you posted it here or at least gave a link to it.
chownah

[justindesilva]

I think that the chariot simile is not meant to show that the chariot does not exist. I think that the chariot simile is meant to show that the chariot does not have a self.
I think if you want to discuss a simile it would be good if you posted it here or at least gave a link to it.
chownah

The analogy of the chariot sppears in vajira sutta (SN5.10) when bikkuni vajira encounters mara and then during thoe milinda prasna ( encounter of questioning on matter of self). In both instances it is shown when taken apart a chariot is no chariot and similarly when pancendriya is considered seperately there appears no self.
Therefore the analogy of chariot is to show that there is no self or anatta. ( Reading milinda prasna is extremely intetesting as a question and answer on darma by a monk nagasena and a greek king called Milinder).

[cappuccino]

no self
does bring up self as a reality that isn't there


whereas not self
doesn't bring up self as a reality that isn't there

[mikenz66]

I think that the chariot simile is not meant to show that the chariot does not exist. I think that the chariot simile is meant to show that the chariot does not have a self.
I think if you want to discuss a simile it would be good if you posted it here or at least gave a link to it.
chownah

The analogy of the chariot sppears in vajira sutta (SN5.10) when bikkuni vajira encounters mara and then during thoe milinda prasna ( encounter of questioning on matter of self). In both instances it is shown when taken apart a chariot is no chariot and similarly when pancendriya is considered seperately there appears no self.
Therefore the analogy of chariot is to show that there is no self or anatta. ( Reading milinda prasna is extremely intetesting as a question and answer on darma by a monk nagasena and a greek king called Milinder).

Here's some discussion of the Vajira Sutta:
viewtopic.php?t=23509
Link to Sutta Central:
https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10
https://suttacentral.net/mil3.1.1/


Mike

[mikenz66]

...it is not appropriate to divide something exist to prove that it does not exist.

I think that this statement is based on an overly-simplistic reading of the Vajira Sutta and the Milindapañha. The sutta and the Milindapañha don't say that these things "don't exist" (unless you only read part of the conversation between Milinda and Nāgasena).

When the parts are assembled
we use the word ‘chariot’.
So too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.
https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato#sc5

And Milinda the king replied to Nāgasena, and said: ‘I have spoken no untruth, reverend Sir. It is on account of its having all these things—the pole, and the axle, the wheels, and the framework, the ropes, the yoke, the spokes, and the goad—that it comes under the generally understood term, the designation in common use, of “chariot.”’
https://suttacentral.net/mil3.1.1/en/tw_rhysdavids

Mike

[SarathW]

Thanks Mike.
How can you apply dependent origination to this conversation?
This is the argument of Ven Sudassana.
By the way, he is not talking about Malinda Pannha.
He is generally talking about the people who are trying to find the truth by parts of the body etc.

[mikenz66]

Thanks Mike.
How can you apply dependent origination to this conversation?
This is the argument of Ven Sudassana.
By the way, he is not talking about Malinda Pannha.
He is generally talking about the people who are trying to find the truth by parts of the body etc.

Sorry, but you will have to explain Ven Sudassana's ideas in much more detail, otherwise it is impossible to make any specific comments.


Mike

[justindesilva]

Thanks Mike.
How can you apply dependent origination to this conversation?
This is the argument of Ven Sudassana.
By the way, he is not talking about Malinda Pannha.
He is generally talking about the people who are trying to find the truth by parts of the body etc.

Hi Sarath , when we follow Depend. Origin. we come across the conditions Vingnana paccaya nama rupa nama rupa paccaya salayatana.
Salayatana consists of pancendriya ( aggregates or kanda of eye nose ears tongue and tactile organs) . As explained in Milinda prasna,
All these if taken seperately cannot be called a being. But a being consists when all are put together just as The chariot is similarly the picture formed in our mind and just as we picture a person seeing as the 5 aggregates. In both cases nothing exists in reality showing that there is no self.
( further conversion on paticca samuppada is not made here as this hopefully answers the question).

[SarathW]

we come across the conditions Vingnana paccaya nama rupa nama rupa paccaya salayatana.
Salayatana consists of pancendriya ( aggregates or kanda of eye nose ears tongue and tactile organs)

This is my exact point.
Chariot simile does not convey this fact.
What chariot simile doing is what scientist are doing today.
They are trying to dissect and say there is no being.

[justindesilva]

we come across the conditions Vingnana paccaya nama rupa nama rupa paccaya salayatana.
Salayatana consists of pancendriya ( aggregates or kanda of eye nose ears tongue and tactile organs)

This is my exact point.
Chariot simile does not convey this fact.
What chariot simile doing is what scientist are doing today.
They are trying to dissect and say there is no being.

We cannot dissect paticca samupada. It explains the process of existence as a dependancy. The process of existence in a non ending cycle with the 12 nidana undergoing this process . We can see that consciousness and apo tejo vayo patavi with akasa are the ingredients of this process. The DO explains the past present and the future which undergo momentary changes. As the past( karma with vingnana) changes to the present , there is no material ( rupa) of the past that is left. As the present moment experienced with pancendriya and moves forward creating karma the present becomes the past and the present becomes the future . Hence in this process no being remains as permanent. The process of paticca samuppada will cease only with nibbana.
We should be aware that a process cannot be dissected.