Self view and conceit

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
uojm
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:21 am

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by uojm » Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:16 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:06 pm
The Arahants use personal pronous. Therefore obviously they can conceive of notions of oneself and others...
This plays no role. You stated the ‘idea of Self’ as inseparable from the Aggregates. If what you said was correct, it would then thus not be possible to separate this ‘idea of self’ from the aggregates. Which means that, while around, this fetter could not be broken.
rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:06 pm
All concepts, notions, ideas and ideations arise in dependence on the Ideation faculty and thus inseparable from the Aggregates.
If wrong view was inseparable from the Aggregates, there would be no escape while around (as long as the aggregates are, so would then wrong view too).
rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:06 pm
The difference is that arahants understanding this no longer take the aggregates to be self
This is, according to the sutta’s, already the case at stream-entry (see also the very first post in this tread).

uojm
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:21 am

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by uojm » Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:21 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:13 pm
OK, so mana is the sense of "I am"
Mana means conceit. The most subtle form of conceit is ‘I am’ (asmimana).
As language can be used a bit freely, we could within the context of his tread say the ’sense of I am’, or ‘I am’, or point to “the container” mana, when we (know we) are talking about the fetter.
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:13 pm
, the sense of a "me" having experiences.
Here self is here assumed. Some previous posts contain a link to the Khemaka Sutta, where these points are addressed by the venerable Khemaka who didn’t regard self but had this sense of ‘I am’.
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:13 pm
But it is quite possible to feel this, and also to feel that things are not in one's control.
Yes, that is the default. According to the sutta’s this self view is fully understood at stream-entry. So we could give us some slack (it is not something that is ‘expected’ to be understood right away). We could view ‘not-self’ as a training; it is something to train. We can play with it. Read the suttas, luckily they got repetitions so we can get used to it.
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:13 pm
why equate the sense of "me" with being in control? I don't see a logical equivalence here.
Oh, but it is not meant as equivalence. It is that if feeling was self you could say ‘let my feeing be so’ or ‘let my feeling not be so’. Well, you can say it, but it won’t listen. That is the ’not full control’. And it is the same for the other aggregates.

rightviewftw
Posts: 2219
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:34 am

uojm wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:16 am
rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:06 pm
The Arahants use personal pronous. Therefore obviously they can conceive of notions of oneself and others...
This plays no role. You stated the ‘idea of Self’ as inseparable from the Aggregates. If what you said was correct, it would then thus not be possible to separate this ‘idea of self’ from the aggregates. Which means that, while around, this fetter could not be broken.
aggregates are literally encompassing all that existed, exists and can exist so obviously all ideas are of the aggregates. no ideas are outside of aggregates. There are no ideas that arise without being perceived all ideas are perceived is what is meant, no ideas are not constructed all ideas are constructed, there are no ideas arising without intention, no ideas arise without being cognized all arising ideas are cognized, without being felt all ideas are felt, there are no ideas arising without contact...
"And what is feeling? ... feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called feeling.
...
"And what is perception? ... perception of ideas: this is called perception.
...
"And what are fabrications? ... intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications.
...
"And what is consciousness? ...intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

If ideas were permanent, unchanging and were held to be true if entertained then what you are saying would make sense but it is not so.
If wrong view was inseparable from the Aggregates, there would be no escape while around (as long as the aggregates are, so would then wrong view too).
Is reality [ALL] (Sabba Sutta) separable from the Aggregates? No.
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All.
"And what is feeling? ... feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called feeling.
...
"And what is perception? ... perception of ideas: this is called perception.
...
"And what are fabrications? ... intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications.
...
"And what is consciousness? ...intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.

Are views separable from reality [All]? No.
[1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
Herein if a view does not occur outside of [the context of] reality and reality does not occur outside of [the context of] Aggregates, then the view is inseparable from reality and by inference can be shown to be inseparable from the Aggregates.
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

Dinsdale
Posts: 6132
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by Dinsdale » Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:44 am

uojm wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:21 am
Oh, but it is not meant as equivalence. It is that if feeling was self you could say ‘let my feeing be so’ or ‘let my feeling not be so’. Well, you can say it, but it won’t listen. That is the ’not full control’. And it is the same for the other aggregates.
But why is self equated to having control? Why can't there be a self which doesn't have control? Or having a sense of self, but not feeling in control?

The suttas make the assumption that atta = control, but I don't see any justification for this assumption. What is this actually based on?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

uojm
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:21 am

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by uojm » Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:45 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:34 am
Herein if a view does not occur outside of [the context of] reality and reality does not occur outside of [the context of] Aggregates, then the view is inseparable from reality and by inference can be shown to be inseparable from the Aggregates.
A fetter ties up. And so yes it has to do with the tightened-up-things. You are telling what, according to you, these things are. But that is, for now, besides the point. Just the conclusion that the fetters and aggregates are inseparable is what so peculiar is. (It implies breaking through only together with the breaking up of the aggregates, and thus there would be no teaching.)

We already talked about the fetters. A way to perhaps make some sense out it, is when we would differ to what Aggregates are. Since we talked about self view the context was set, but let me check. We are talking about pancakkhandha right?

(But are we not clouding this tread already to much?)

rightviewftw
Posts: 2219
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:57 pm

uojm wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:45 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:34 am
Herein if a view does not occur outside of [the context of] reality and reality does not occur outside of [the context of] Aggregates, then the view is inseparable from reality and by inference can be shown to be inseparable from the Aggregates.
A fetter ties up. And so yes it has to do with the tightened-up-things. You are telling what, according to you, these things are. But that is, for now, besides the point. Just the conclusion that the fetters and aggregates are inseparable is what so peculiar is. (It implies breaking through only together with the breaking up of the aggregates, and thus there would be no teaching.)

We already talked about the fetters. A way to perhaps make some sense out it, is when we would differ to what Aggregates are. Since we talked about self view the context was set, but let me check. We are talking about pancakkhandha right?

(But are we not clouding this tread already to much?)
I have provided you with references, it is not according to me that;
1. All is defined as intellect & ideas etc
2. That that which is called the world is that which conceives & perceives the world
3. The Aggregates are inherently tied up with conception and perception of the world

This is meaning to inferred from the Sutta and it shows that it is stupid to talk about any view or idea apart from the Aggregates because the Aggregates are 6 classes of past present and future perceptions, intentions, contact-feeling, consciousness, elements & forms derived from the four elements. The Aggregates thus describe the Arising of the All and therefore the World.
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

uojm
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:21 am

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by uojm » Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:10 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:57 pm
...The Aggregates thus describe the Arising of the All and therefore the World.
It is not about the references, but about the interference from the six-sense-bases to "The Aggregates thus describe the Arising of the All". The All is burning. Continuing in this interference we would then get that the five aggregates are dukkha. In that way ‘logically’ this ‘inseparable’ could make sense. Is it your view that this would be consistent with the teaching?

rightviewftw
Posts: 2219
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:21 pm

uojm wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:10 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:57 pm
...The Aggregates thus describe the Arising of the All and therefore the World.
It is not about the references, but about the interference from the six-sense-bases to "The Aggregates thus describe the Arising of the All". The All is burning. Continuing in this interference we would then get that the five aggregates are dukkha. In that way ‘logically’ this ‘inseparable’ could make sense. Is it your view that this would be consistent with the teaching?
I am not sure what you mean by interference or why you put logically in quotation but yes The Five Aggregates are Dukkha and all that is Dukkha can be explained to be Aggregates, therefore yes it would be consistent.

When there is Eye and Forms (Rupa) there can be Eye Consciousness (Vinnana), meeting of the three is Contact, Contact is felt (Vedana), whatever is felt is perceived (Sanna) and this comes to originate due to Intention (Sankhara) in this sense Aggregates describe the Arising of Sense Impressions and based on the arising of sense Impressions All is postulated, when there is Seeing the existence of eye & form can be delineated, when there is contact at the Intellect Base there is Perception of Ideas, Feeling-Contact based on the Intellect, Intellect-Consciousness etc

Therefore The Five Aggregates describe the conception and perception of the arising of the six senses.
"'All phenomena have contact as their origination.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

uojm
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:21 am

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by uojm » Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:55 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:21 pm
I am not sure what you mean by interference or why you put logically in quotation
Ah, yes, I meant inference here. And I put logically between quotations because logic you can accept but I can not, and illogic I can accept and you can not. Since there is consistency I thought this would be best.
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:21 pm
but yes The Five Aggregates are Dukkha and all that is Dukkha can be explained to be Aggregates, therefore yes it would be consistent.
Now it is clear to me how you could come up with such conclusions. We got to the key point why you see it as consistent and I as inconsistent with the teaching.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6132
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by Dinsdale » Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:16 am

uojm wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:21 am
Oh, but it is not meant as equivalence.
It isn't, but it is presented as such - I still haven't seen an explanation.
uojm wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:21 am
It is that if feeling was self you could say ‘let my feeling be so’ or ‘let my feeling not be so’.
I know the formula, but I still don't see a coherent explanation for how it is derived. It's like a bland claim which doesn't explain anything. Clearly we don't have much control over the way we experience stuff, but what has that to do with having or not having a "self"? ( the question applies whether we're talking about a "soul" or about "I am" ).
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by Sam Vara » Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:09 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:16 am
Clearly we don't have much control over the way we experience stuff, but what has that to do with having or not having a "self"?
Because any selfhood worthy of the name would involve control, which is an identity between our willing something and it happening. You can think of this as an analytic statement: "To the extent that a control over our experience exists, that's what we call a self in this context".

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1771
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by Bundokji » Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:24 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:09 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:16 am
Clearly we don't have much control over the way we experience stuff, but what has that to do with having or not having a "self"?
Because any selfhood worthy of the name would involve control, which is an identity between our willing something and it happening. You can think of this as an analytic statement: "To the extent that a control over our experience exists, that's what we call a self in this context".
It also can be linked to the idea of ownership and its relationship to control from a legal point of view. Our whole legal system (conventional reality) is built around it, and from it, comes along notions of responsibility, reward and punishment.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6132
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by Dinsdale » Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:32 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:09 am
You can think of this as an analytic statement: "To the extent that a control over our experience exists, that's what we call a self in this context".
But this is just an assertion, and I still don't see the basis for it. It looks like an arbitrary definition.

I can see that not having control is unsatisfactory, but what has that do with the existence or non-existence of a self?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1771
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by Bundokji » Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:34 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:32 am
But this is just an assertion, and I still don't see the basis for it. It looks like an arbitrary definition.

I can see that not having control is unsatisfactory, but what has that do with the existence or non-existence of a self?
Would you feel guilty over something you have no control over? if not, why not?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Self view and conceit

Post by Sam Vara » Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:50 am

Bundokji wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:24 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:09 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:16 am
Clearly we don't have much control over the way we experience stuff, but what has that to do with having or not having a "self"?
Because any selfhood worthy of the name would involve control, which is an identity between our willing something and it happening. You can think of this as an analytic statement: "To the extent that a control over our experience exists, that's what we call a self in this context".
It also can be linked to the idea of ownership and its relationship to control from a legal point of view. Our whole legal system (conventional reality) is built around it, and from it, comes along notions of responsibility, reward and punishment.
Exactly. As my teacher used to say, "Ownership is a view". He pointed out that we have to keep re-inventing title-deeds, documents, laws and ceremonies to constantly tell our ourselves who owns what. In reality, it's just a convention, and nobody own anything.
The world is without ownership. One has to pass on, leaving everything behind': This is the third Dhamma summary...
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The punishment and responsibility bit is something I haven't considered before, but I will now! :anjali:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: auto, Baidu [Spider], chownah, justindesilva, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 32 guests