Back to self!

[Circle5]

What makes you think that a self is required for a feeling (suffering) to arise? You do not agree that contact alone is enough for feelings to arise?

[DooDoot]

What makes you think that a self is required for a feeling (suffering) to arise? You do not agree that contact alone is enough for feelings to arise?

I have never read in the suttas that "vedana (feelings)" = "suffering". Again, you probably need to provide literal direct sutta evidence (rather than your personal embellished interpretation of sutta).

"Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings, contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing) cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go). Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling (think about) to anything in the world. When he does not cling (think about), he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, there is no more coming to any state of being.’ Briefly, it is in this way, ruler of gods, that a bhikkhu is liberated in the destruction of craving, one who has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate security from bondage, the ultimate holy life, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost among gods and humans.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Bhik ... _Sutta.htm

The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these foundations, and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said?

“Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

“So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these foundations, and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’

https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/bodhi

[Circle5]

I have never read in the suttas that "vedana (feelings)" = "suffering". Again, you probably need to provide literal direct sutta evidence (rather than your personal embellished interpretation of sutta).

I think even a child can tell you that suffering is an unpleasant feeling. It's not an airplane, not a star, it's a feeling. A feeling that arises from time to time due to certain conditions.

You claimed that a self appears to be required for the arising of feelings, or at least for the arising of unpleasant feelings.

[Bundokji]

You claimed that a self appears to be required for the arising of feelings, or at least for the arising of unpleasant feelings.

I think feelings here refer to mental stress, not physical pain.

[chownah]

You claimed that a self appears to be required for the arising of feelings, or at least for the arising of unpleasant feelings.

I think feelings here refer to mental stress, not physical pain.

I don't understand what you are saying here....can you give an explanation?

I think that a self is not required for anything to arise since it seems counter intuitive for something which does not exist to be required for anything....but wait a minute!....it could be that a delusional sense of self IS required for dukkha......I guess.....don't know for sure.....
chownah

[Bundokji]

I don't understand what you are saying here....can you give an explanation?

I think that a self is not required for anything to arise since it seems counter intuitive for something which does not exist to be required for anything....but wait a minute!....it could be that a delusional sense of self IS required for dukkha......I guess.....don't know for sure.....
chownah

I think for the purposes of this discussion, it could be useful for to divide the self into the following to make necessary distinctions:

1- The self as a reference point, needed for functioning socially, for memory and for planning. This self is necessary for practical reasons.
2- A self as existence, which is delusional and a cause of suffering (clinging).

Suffering is confusing the two. Wisdom is the clear distinction between what is beneficial and what is delusional. For instance, if you ask a wise man and a fool the following question: what did you eat yesterday for lunch? Both would give you an answer, but for the wise, the answer is a simple function of his memory and it stops at that. The fool on the other hand, would have the memory with certain impressions and themes which becomes a cause for craving for more food in the future (or aversion), so in his case, it is more than a mere function of the memory. It is a drama in which he can either be the hero or the victim, or whatever role you can imagine.

Similarly, feelings can be divided into the following to make necessary distinctions:

1- Physical feelings, which is a natural function of the body, necessary for survival, such as feelings of pain, tasting, feeling heat, cold, itching ...etc
2- Mental feelings, often described as emotions, which can also be divided into two:

A- The four Brahmavihara, which is the emotional side of wisdom or the absence of the second type of self
B- Feelings of greed, psychological fear, ill will, anger, pride, jealousy ...etc which is the emotional side of the presence of the second type of the self.

Thanks

[SamKR]

Anything that arises is suffering including feeling.

[uojm]

Anything that arises is suffering including feeling.

This too holds the view that the khandhas are suffering.

Suppose this was true then as long as vedana is found, dukkha is found. And only when vedana ended dukkha ended. This would mean that Buddha could not have actually ended dukkha while being around. This Teaching would then not be possible or true.

But that is not what the suttas say. Since it is their nature to change, fall away,..., whatever is felt can therefor (in that regard) be seen as dukkha (sn36.11) and that makes all the difference. Thus we can find that with the destruction of dukkha the khandhas can remain with their root cut off (th6.11).

[auto]

According to Buddhism - my illusory notion of self is being asked to understand that the self is an illusion.

If I have no self, then who/what is being asked to understand that the self is an illusion?

Something or someone is being asked to understand. Who is being asked?

I've noticed that this question, almost a cliche, is the favorite attack method that Hindus use to attack Buddhism from a potpourri, conglomerated ideology, whose backbone is racial apartheird: "Hinduism" .

I'm not saying this about you.

I'm saying in general, you will find a plethora of Hindus doing this.

To which I would respond, that if there is a soul, where exactly is it?

Sheer superstition from dark ages, my friend.


Wouldn't you agree with me?

small self isn't readily available or shown. Forms, feelings etc what you see are things led into completion. Causes are required to be able to see or know.

Now, the Self is where the conditions are not led into completion. Heartwood, vimuttisārā. <nowadays accepted beliefs are based on the tree bark.


edit: small self 3 first khandhas, 2 last; mental khandhas big Self. Tree bark and heartwood.
Why edit is because i actually thought at the moment that the big self has its dimension, but its just what mental means. Also this is bringing the doubt out of me, it causes doubt in me what i feel.

[Dan74-MkII]

According to Buddhism - my illusory notion of self is being asked to understand that the self is an illusion.

If I have no self, then who/what is being asked to understand that the self is an illusion?

Something or someone is being asked to understand. Who is being asked?

Ultimately, no one is asked. There is the asking and the possibility of understanding. Just processes, occurrences - the flow of phenomena.

[auto]

According to Buddhism - my illusory notion of self is being asked to understand that the self is an illusion.

If I have no self, then who/what is being asked to understand that the self is an illusion?

Something or someone is being asked to understand. Who is being asked?

Ultimately, no one is asked. There is the asking and the possibility of understanding. Just processes, occurrences - the flow of phenomena.

context

https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/sujato

The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does not die. They are not shaken, and do not yearn.
Muni kho pana, bhikkhu, santo na jāyati, na jīyati, na mīyati, na kuppati, na piheti.
For they have nothing which would cause them to be reborn. Not being reborn, how could they grow old? Not growing old, how could they die? Not dying, how could they be shaken? Not shaking, for what could they yearn?
Tañhissa, bhikkhu, natthi yena jāyetha, ajāyamāno kiṃ jīyissati, ajīyamāno kiṃ mīyissati, amīyamāno kiṃ kuppissati, akuppamāno kissa pihessati?

http://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/m/muni

muniPTS Pali-English dictionary The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary
Muni，[cp．Vedic muni，originally one who has made the vow of silence．Cp．Chh．Up．VIII，5，2； Pss．of the Br．132 note．Connected with mūka：see under mukha．This etym．preferred by Aufrecht：Halāyudha p．311．Another，as favoured by Pischel （see under munāti） is “inspired，moved by the spirit．” Pāli explns （popular etym．） are given by Dhammapāla at VvA．114 & 231：see munana] a holy man，a sage，wise man．I．The term which was specialised in Brahmanism has acquired a general meaning in Buddhism & is applied by the Buddha to any man attaining perfection in self-restraint and insight．So the word is capable of many-sided application and occurs frequently in the oldest poetic anthologies，e．g．Sn．207--221 （the famous Muni-sutta，mentioned Divy 20，35； SnA 518； expld SnA 254--277），414，462，523 sq．，708 sq．，811 sq．，838，844 sq．，912 sq．，946，1074 & passim （see Pj．Index p．749）； Dh．49，225，268 sq．，423．-- Cp．general passages & explns at Pv．II，113； II，133 （expld at PvA．163 by “attahitañ ca parahitañ ca munāti jānātī ti muni”）； Miln．90 （munibhāva “munihood，” meditation，self-denial，abrogation）； DhA．III，521 （munayo=moneyya-paṭipadāya maggaphalaṁ pattā asekha-munayo），395 （here expld with ref．to orig．meaning tuṇhībhāva “state of silence” =mona）．-- II．The Com．& Abhidhamma literature have produced several schedules of muni-qualities，esp．based on the 3 fold division of character as revealed in action，speech & thought （kāya°，vacī°，mano°）．Just as these 3 are in general exhibited in good or bad ways of living （°sucaritaṁ & °duccaritaṁ），they are applied to a deeper quality of saintship in kāya-moneyya，vacīmoneyya，mano-moneyya； or Muni-hood in action，speech & thought； and the muni himself is characterised as a kāya-muni，vacī° & mano°．Thus runs the long exegesis of muni at Nd2 514A=Nd1 57．Besides this the same chapter （514B） gives a division of 6 munis，viz．agāra-muni，anagāra° （the bhikkhus），sekha°，asekha° （the Arahants），pacceka° （the Paccekabuddhas），muni° （the Tathāgatas）．-- The parallel passage to Nd2 514A at A．I，273 gives a muni as kāya-muni，vācā° & ceto° （under the 3 moneyyāni）．（Page 538）

lets highlight some of it,

The term which was specialised in Brahmanism has acquired a general meaning in Buddhism & is applied by the Buddha to any man attaining perfection in self-restraint and insight．

munibhāva “munihood，” meditation，self-denial，abrogation

Another，as favoured by Pischel （see under munāti） is “inspired，moved by the spirit．

[Dan74-MkII]

Not quite sure I understand.

To me, anatta isn't really very mysterious. Of course, the levels of realising it vary tremendously, but it is not really hard to begin to see it in our lives. Everything we think of as an object is in fact a vast web of relationships, past present and future, changing without pause. None more so than our minds. When we reflect on all the influences, from food, temperature, physical environment, what is heard, seen, smelled, to inner chemical and electric processes, genetics stretching back till time immemorial and the interactions of all these different factors, we begin to experience ourselves more as a happening, than an "object".

Again, this is not to say that to completely thoroughly realise anatta is a trivial matter. At the same time to begin to understand it is not that hard, IMO.

[alfa]

Not quite sure I understand.

To me, anatta isn't really very mysterious. Of course, the levels of realising it vary tremendously, but it is not really hard to begin to see it in our lives. Everything we think of as an object is in fact a vast web of relationships, past present and future, changing without pause. None more so than our minds. When we reflect on all the influences, from food, temperature, physical environment, what is heard, seen, smelled, to inner chemical and electric processes, genetics stretching back till time immemorial and the interactions of all these different factors, we begin to experience ourselves more as a happening, than an "object".

Again, this is not to say that to completely thoroughly realise anatta is a trivial matter. At the same time to begin to understand it is not that hard, IMO.

Easy to understand theoretically. Deeper understanding is something else entirely.

[Manopubbangama]

Not quite sure I understand.

To me, anatta isn't really very mysterious. Of course, the levels of realising it vary tremendously, but it is not really hard to begin to see it in our lives. Everything we think of as an object is in fact a vast web of relationships, past present and future, changing without pause. None more so than our minds. When we reflect on all the influences, from food, temperature, physical environment, what is heard, seen, smelled, to inner chemical and electric processes, genetics stretching back till time immemorial and the interactions of all these different factors, we begin to experience ourselves more as a happening, than an "object".

Again, this is not to say that to completely thoroughly realise anatta is a trivial matter. At the same time to begin to understand it is not that hard, IMO.

Easy to understand theoretically. Deeper understanding is something else entirely.

Yup, very much so, Alfa.


If we truly "got it" we would all be arahants.

To say "oh we are all a process...little "i" not the big "I" " etc is not the end goal; the end goal is elimination of all dukkha.

Anatta is the most profound teaching in Buddhism and its not about some kensho-one-with-the-universe moment, its a gradule path of experience.

[auto]

Not quite sure I understand.

To me, anatta isn't really very mysterious. Of course, the levels of realising it vary tremendously, but it is not really hard to begin to see it in our lives. Everything we think of as an object is in fact a vast web of relationships, past present and future, changing without pause. None more so than our minds. When we reflect on all the influences, from food, temperature, physical environment, what is heard, seen, smelled, to inner chemical and electric processes, genetics stretching back till time immemorial and the interactions of all these different factors, we begin to experience ourselves more as a happening, than an "object".

Again, this is not to say that to completely thoroughly realise anatta is a trivial matter. At the same time to begin to understand it is not that hard, IMO.

Ultimately, no one is asked. There is the asking and the possibility of understanding. Just processes, occurrences - the flow of phenomena.

wrong views rooted in annihilation and eternity.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

eternity

"'And among them there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer nor one who causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When one cuts off [another person's] head, there is no one taking anyone's life. It is simply between the seven substances that the sword passes.'

annihilation

There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements.

there is a being. The views are views about what is this being. Blatant denial of that being is related to annihilation, tanha; desire to end existence.
-
the two fetters of 10 fetter model,
desire for existence and desire for non existence can refer to eternalism and annihilation

http://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/v/vibhava

vibhavaPTS Pali-English dictionary The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary
vibhav’ânurūpaṁ id．VvA．254．-- 2．non-existence，cessation of life，annihilation

Vibhava，[vi+bhava] 1．power，wealth，prosperity DA．I，147； J．I，56； V，285； Mhvs 26，6； DhA．I，6； II，9，84； IV，7； VvA．5，302 （°sampanna rich）； PvA．122，130，176，196．Great wealth is expressed by asīti-koṭi-vibhava，consisting in 80 koṭis，e．g．DhA．I，367； II，25．-- bahu° very rich J．I，145； mahā° id．PvA．97，107．-- yathā vibhavaṁ according to one’s means or power PvA．54； vibhav’ânurūpaṁ id．VvA．254．-- 2．non-existence，cessation of life，annihilation D．I，34； Sn．514 （+bhava），867 （id．）； Nd1 274，282； J．III，402 （°ṁ gata=vināsaṁ patta C．）； V，267 （id．）； DhsA．392； DA．I，120； VbhA．505 （=bhava-vigama）．See also taṇhā B 1．

--taṇhā “craving for life to end” （Dial．III，208），desire for non-existence D III，216，275； Vin．I，10； Ud．33； It．50； VbhA．111．--diṭṭhi the theory of non-becoming D．III，212； A．I，83； Nd1 245，274．（Page 629）

https://suttacentral.net/mn11/en/sujato

views favoring continued existence and views favoring ending existence.
bhavadiṭṭhi ca vibhavadiṭṭhi ca.