Which is part of the paradox.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:58 am Greetings,
By regarding all dhammas as not-self, and forgetting about this ontological "no self" idea.
Metta,
Paul.
There is no such implication at all.No_Mind wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:16 am "By regarding" - you are implying that someone is regarding who is being asked to not regard (the illusory self from dependent arising is being asked not to regard.) But any statement about the illusory self being asked not to regard brings out the illusory self!
In my case, when i began acknowledging that i have self view and that my mind is creating a self that is trying to get rid of itself, my focus became more on using the self more skillfully. The mind (or self view) seem to be the social aspect in us and important for our survival in the world. Our survival in the world is necessary for practicing and understanding the Buddha's teaching, hence the practice has nothing to do with the denial of the self, but to understand it and learn how to use it skillfully.
Hi,No_Mind wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:31 am
So it becomes a Catch-22 situation - unless I demand to understand that my notion of self is illusory (that is proceeding from being ignorant of the Dhamma to being aware of it) I will not understand it is an illusion, but the moment I make this demand I have given rise to a self based on dependent arising.
How does one get past this paradox?
The paradox can be solved:No_Mind wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:16 amWhich is part of the paradox.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:58 am Greetings,
By regarding all dhammas as not-self, and forgetting about this ontological "no self" idea.
Metta,
Paul.
"By regarding" - you are implying that someone is regarding who is being asked to not regard (the illusory self from dependent arising is being asked not to regard.) But any statement about the illusory self being asked not to regard brings out the illusory self!
During my absence from the forum I have been contemplating this very statement - is a witness needed for a vision to arise?SamKR wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:02 am This vision just arises to nobody - no person is needed for the vision to be; in fact person was never needed even when there was illusion of a person. Things happen, but they just happen, they happen to no one. Illusion of personal self happens, but it happens to no one!
Then, my friend, let me ask you a counter-question: When a computer decides that a file is corrupted and should be removed - is there a self of the computer regarding the file in that way? Is there somebody asking the self of the computer to remove the file, and then the self of the computer removes it?No_Mind wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:16 am "By regarding" - you are implying that someone is regarding who is being asked to not regard (the illusory self from dependent arising is being asked not to regard.) But any statement about the illusory self being asked not to regard brings out the illusory self!
if i don't do anything, i come aware of boredom(dighamrattam). This is where i can come aware that i am aware. There is heaviness accompanied.Circle5 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:55 amIf, at 22:47, the thought that "there is a self" or whatever other thought relating to the self arises - I only see a thought arising because of conditions there. A couple of minutes afterwards, when conditions change, that though will disappear. Even the memory of that though will eventually disappear. That though is not self. That thought is a conditionaly arisen, impermanent phenomenon that is not self.
Same as a computer might display a window with some message due to conditions, a thought might arise in a person at a certain time due to conditions. No self is required for this to happen.
More here (consciousness explained in drawings): viewtopic.php?t=28666
FWIW, Thanissaro Bhikkhu acknowledges a paradox. The word is in the title of one of his books, The Paradox of Becoming.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Parad ... n0005.htmlThe importance of becoming is evident from the role it plays in the four noble truths, particularly in the second: Suffering and stress are caused by any form of craving that leads to becoming. Thus the end of suffering must involve the end of becoming. The central paradox of becoming is also evident in the second noble truth, where one of the three forms of craving leading to becoming is craving for non-becoming—the ending of what has come to be. This poses a practical challenge for any attempt to put an end to becoming...[T]he Buddha himself taught a strategic resolution to this paradox, in which the fourth noble truth—the path to the end of suffering—involves creating a type of becoming where the mind is so steady and alert that it can simply allow what has come into being to pass away of its own accord...
Splendid answerJohnK wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:58 pmFWIW, Thanissaro Bhikkhu acknowledges a paradox. The word is in the title of one of his books, The Paradox of Becoming.
I have not yet gotten beyond the first chapter, so can't offer much, but here is a little from the Preface [italics added]:
The title of one of his other books implies a paradox: Selves and Not-Self.The importance of becoming is evident from the role it plays in the four noble truths, particularly in the second: Suffering and stress are caused by any form of craving that leads to becoming. Thus the end of suffering must involve the end of becoming. The central paradox of becoming is also evident in the second noble truth, where one of the three forms of craving leading to becoming is craving for non-becoming—the ending of what has come to be. This poses a practical challenge for any attempt to put an end to becoming...[T]he Buddha himself taught a strategic resolution to this paradox, in which the fourth noble truth—the path to the end of suffering—involves creating a type of becoming where the mind is so steady and alert that it can simply allow what has come into being to pass away of its own accord...
My take on it is that one can't jump ahead on the path to realizing not-self (or non-becoming). One first "becomes" one who follows the path until the path leads one to realize not-self and non-becoming. One does not have to realize not-self to follow the path -- and thinking that one needs to understand/believe/realize not-self can actually be disruptive to progress on the path (caught in a thicket of views). Like I said, that's just my take on it w/o claiming to fully understand. But one or both of these books might be helpful if this is a barrier on the path.
According to the historical Buddha, there is nobody observing, nobody suffering, nobody experiencing pleasure. There is just suffering, pleasure, thoughts, feelings, etc. arising and ceasing based on conditions. Same as a window might appear and disappear on a computer due to conditions. No self is needed for that to happen, and nobody will ever find a self there no matter how much he searches.
First step of the noble 8thfold path is attaining Right view (stream entry). In the suttas, we see that whenever Buddha met new people, his first move was to expose them to the higher dhamma, and after a couple of days of contemplation, those people became stream enterers. Some even did it in a couple of hours, others took as long as 1 month.My take on it is that one can't jump ahead on the path to realizing not-self (or non-becoming). One first "becomes" one who follows the path until the path leads one to realize not-self and non-becoming. One does not have to realize not-self to follow the path -- and thinking that one needs to understand/believe/realize not-self can actually be disruptive to progress on the path (caught in a thicket of views)
hello eternalism.Circle5 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:12 pmAccording to the historical Buddha, there is nobody observing, nobody suffering, nobody experiencing pleasure. There is just suffering, pleasure, thoughts, feelings, etc. arising and ceasing based on conditions. Same as a window might appear and disappear on a computer due to conditions. No self is needed for that to happen, and nobody will ever find a self there no matter how much he searches.
Per SN 12.12, "who" seems to be the wrong question. Since what attains liberation in the suttas is "the citta" or "mind", it seems it is the mind that must understand the illusion. Its probably like breaking a leg. Its the leg that must be repaired & healed rather than "the self".
An even better example is a computer recognizing a virus and removing it. There is information, ability to process information, alghorithms that help deciding what to do depending on this information, etc. There is no self in the computer processing the information, no self that is deciding to remove the virus based on that information. There is no self in there whatsoever.DooDoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:40 pm Per SN 12.12, "who" seems to be the wrong question. Since what attains liberation in the suttas is "the citta" or "mind", it seems it is the mind that must understand the illusion. Its probably like breaking a leg. Its the leg that must be repaired & healed rather than "the self".
I am listening to a Bhikkhu Buddhadasa talk now about Anapanasati and your post reminded me of one of his old talks (although I don't recall the content of the talk). Possibly "you" (the mind) can listen to it and provide some feedback for "us" (other minds).
