No self theory do I get it right?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
auto
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Sun May 05, 2019 8:43 pm

clw_uk wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 8:33 pm
auto
when you say things then these affect the body, certain sayings will cause things in body to rise and with these things knowledges arise, knowledge contains information and sometimes also containing what to do.

Asking where is this self, should prompt you to come aware, also you may come aware that you sit in your room. When then you look at your hand, then it is your hand at that moment. Then you can do proper type of mediation or sadhanas because you have reach to that point where you could and is useful.

I'm sorry but you aren't answering my questions. Also, none of that means that there is a self which you do so claim. Its mere assertion and quite vague at that.
Most(maybe psychopaths don't know about feelings) knows about feelings, fewer know about that its you who is aware of feelings and that the feeling you feel is not you..you know where it is going..you just are the mayority who doesn't get it..

*vague assertions..well i have being sceptic towards various things what i later learned actually works as they claimed to be work, like colors, red affects certain way etc.
Last edited by auto on Sun May 05, 2019 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5283
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by Ceisiwr » Sun May 05, 2019 8:47 pm

auto wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 8:43 pm
clw_uk wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 8:33 pm
auto
when you say things then these affect the body, certain sayings will cause things in body to rise and with these things knowledges arise, knowledge contains information and sometimes also containing what to do.

Asking where is this self, should prompt you to come aware, also you may come aware that you sit in your room. When then you look at your hand, then it is your hand at that moment. Then you can do proper type of mediation or sadhanas because you have reach to that point where you could and is useful.

I'm sorry but you aren't answering my questions. Also, none of that means that there is a self which you do so claim. Its mere assertion and quite vague at that.
Most(maybe psychopaths don't know about feelings) knows about feelings, fewer know about that its you who is aware of feelings and that the feeling you feel is not you..you know where it is going..you just are the mayority who doesn't get it..
There you go again. If you aren't going to engage in a debate and instead rely upon nebulous assertions that the self is real then there isn't much point in us discussing things further. You now have two choices, answer my previous questions in good faith or let the conversation die and move on.

auto
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Sun May 05, 2019 8:54 pm

clw_uk wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 8:47 pm
auto wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 8:43 pm
clw_uk wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 8:33 pm
auto




I'm sorry but you aren't answering my questions. Also, none of that means that there is a self which you do so claim. Its mere assertion and quite vague at that.
Most(maybe psychopaths don't know about feelings) knows about feelings, fewer know about that its you who is aware of feelings and that the feeling you feel is not you..you know where it is going..you just are the mayority who doesn't get it..
There you go again. If you aren't going to engage in a debate and instead rely upon nebulous assertions that the self is real then there isn't much point in us discussing things further. You now have two choices, answer my previous questions in good faith or let the conversation die and move on.
ok my bad
you can read above that khandhas aren't self; form, feeligns, perception.. are not self.

you can know the self through khandhas like you would know the clothes are wet. or when you see sad dog, then you know it is sad dog, same way you know the self.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5283
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by Ceisiwr » Sun May 05, 2019 8:59 pm

auto

ok my bad
you can read above that khandhas aren't self; form, feeligns, perception.. are not self.

you can know the self through khandhas like you would know the clothes are wet. or when you see sad dog, then you know it is sad dog, same way you know the self.


Thank you.

You say you can know the self through the khandhas, but what is there apart from the khandhas? What is there apart from form, feeling, perceptions, thoughts and consciousness? I see no evidence of anything else. However, when i meditate I can see that "I am" is a thought that arises and falls either in relation to one or all of the khandhas or as an idea in of itself. Awareness of course sees the rise and fall of I am, but awareness itself rises and falls so I can't see how that is self either.

auto
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Sun May 05, 2019 9:13 pm

clw_uk wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 8:59 pm
auto

ok my bad
you can read above that khandhas aren't self; form, feeligns, perception.. are not self.

you can know the self through khandhas like you would know the clothes are wet. or when you see sad dog, then you know it is sad dog, same way you know the self.


Thank you.

You say you can know the self through the khandhas, but what is there apart from the khandhas? What is there apart from form, feeling, perceptions, thoughts and consciousness? I see no evidence of anything else. However, when i meditate I can see that "I am" is a thought that arises and falls either in relation to one or all of the khandhas or as an idea in of itself. Awareness of course sees the rise and fall of I am, but awareness itself rises and falls so I can't see how that is self either.
when you come aware then the citta returns to heart, when lost in thoughts then at that time there can be a conseption and citta goes to reproductive organs into the realms there.
I think that the citta is small self and you will experience whatever it experiences. Citta is soul(if not or is the premise what i talked about is still on, i won't retract from it), so now you have some material to say i'm wrong.

Sutta https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of form ...
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of feeling ...
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of perception ...
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of fabrications …
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it stands still. Owing to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
it is consciousness what is released from these 5 properties, but what pali word is there, i need check. it talks about properties coming cut off therefore khandha won't establish.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.55/en/sujato
consciousness element, the support is cut off, and there is no foundation for consciousness. viññāṇadhātuyā ce, bhikkhu, bhikkhuno rāgo pahīno hoti. Rāgassa pahānā vocchijjatārammaṇaṃ patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti. Since that consciousness does not become established and does not grow, with no power to regenerate, it is freed. Tadappatiṭṭhitaṃ viññāṇaṃ avirūḷhaṃ anabhisaṅkhacca vimuttaṃ.
..Being free, it’s stable. Being stable, it’s content. Being content, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished. Vimuttattā ṭhitaṃ. Ṭhitattā santusitaṃ. Santusitattā na paritassati. Aparitassaṃ paccattaññeva parinibbāyati.
hmm im stupid, i realized that the "they" there is meant as khandhas? why khandhas are spoken of as they are living? i think i get it, they are attached to soul to get their vitality.

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4461
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Jaroen Dhamma Cave, Mae Wang Huai Rin, Lamphun

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by Dhammanando » Sun May 05, 2019 9:40 pm

auto wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 7:40 pm
the one who feel feelings is you whilst the feeling is not self.
It is vedanā that feels, not you.
Vedayatīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā vedanā ti vuccati. Kiñca vedayati? Sukhampi vedayati, dukkhampi vedayati, adukkhamasukhampi vedayati. Vedayatīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā vedanā ti vuccati.

It feels, bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. And what does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pain-nor-pleasure. It feels, bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.
Khajjanīya Sutta

Likewise with the rest of the khandhas:

It perceives, bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception. And what does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. It perceives, bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception.

They construct the conditioned, bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. They construct the conditioned, bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.

It cognizes, bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness. And what does it cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes salty, it cognizes bland. It cognizes, bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness.
“Keep to your own pastures, bhikkhus, walk in the haunts where your fathers roamed.
If ye thus walk in them, Māra will find no lodgement, Māra will find no foothold.”
— Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta

auto
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Sun May 05, 2019 9:59 pm

Dhammanando wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 9:40 pm
auto wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 7:40 pm
the one who feel feelings is you whilst the feeling is not self.
It is vedanā that feels, not you.
Vedayatīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā vedanā ti vuccati. Kiñca vedayati? Sukhampi vedayati, dukkhampi vedayati, adukkhamasukhampi vedayati. Vedayatīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā vedanā ti vuccati.

It feels, bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. And what does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pain-nor-pleasure. It feels, bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.
Khajjanīya Sutta

Likewise with the rest of the khandhas:

It perceives, bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception. And what does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. It perceives, bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception.

They construct the conditioned, bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. They construct the conditioned, bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.

It cognizes, bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness. And what does it cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes salty, it cognizes bland. It cognizes, bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness.
The vedana when it feels is me, atta.

with the form, feeling not being me is from Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. It is regards to conditioned phenomena what are not self, like loud noise when it annoys is not self.
It involves supernatural thinking, when a sawman has saw and makes loud noise it is his kamma and reality to do so, its not mine.


The people in a dream i see of course aren't the ones in waking life in respect to if i do something to them in dream doesn't mean it happened for real but it happened real in a dream. Same logic is with khandhas i afraid. And here thank god i can better my conduct and remove defilements, develop my mind..

chownah
Posts: 7869
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by chownah » Mon May 06, 2019 3:16 am

You can see the self very easily.....when you see that some famous person was born on the 34th of Elevember and you think "that is my birthday too!....I am special because I have the same birthday as other great people!"
chownah

User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala » Mon May 06, 2019 8:23 am

Not-self (anatta) is not a theory. It is a description of reality, an explanation of how rebirth is possible according to the doctrine of dependent origination.

See Four Points to Bear in Mind about Dependent Origination. Mind and matter are governed by laws of cause and effect. The so-called self is an illusion only; not anything that really exists. See The Nature of Illusion.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)

User avatar
bridif1
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by bridif1 » Mon May 06, 2019 8:26 am

chownah wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 3:16 am
You can see the self very easily.....when you see that some famous person was born on the 34th of Elevember and you think "that is my birthday too!....I am special because I have the same birthday as other great people!"
chownah
Hi chownah!

Have you heard about Phantom Limb pain?
Basically, even after someone's limb has been amputated, that person can still feel pain in that limb.
The brain keeps the somatosensorial model it had about the body with all its limbs, and some pain neural pathways remain activated in the nerves that sensed pain from the amputated limb.

In that case, that person is feeling something which is not there. Even if the pain and sensations feel just as if the limb was still there, the truth is it is not there anymore.

This imperfect analogy can illustrate how some models and representations about aren't always true, even if emotionally we depend on those models.
The same can be said about the self: we feel a self, we feel continuity, we have memories of the past, and we assume that those three things constitute a permanent "I" or "me". We assume a self that experiments feelings and perceptions, and has a specific form, with specific mental formations and which is conscious about those four mentioned aggregates. But there is not a central "experiencer" nor a "doer": those two ideas are born out of sheer ignorance.

Not because we assume something to exist, we can said that thing to actually exist.
I can feel the presence of Yahweh or Krishna before me, and that does not make it more real or true.

Kind regards!

auto
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Mon May 06, 2019 11:48 am

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 8:23 am
Not-self (anatta) is not a theory. It is a description of reality, an explanation of how rebirth is possible according to the doctrine of dependent origination.

See Four Points to Bear in Mind about Dependent Origination. Mind and matter are governed by laws of cause and effect. The so-called self is an illusion only; not anything that really exists. See The Nature of Illusion.
you are wrong.
Self isn't illusion. Without it you don't get assess to your body, won't come aware, won't get to awaken defilements so that you could even purify yourself.
self is needed to stop the breath, have the internal breath, assess the internal organs, purify in a way that seasonal sickness won't affect you, passing away naturally and easy.

When you do meditation, then what do you do there? the difficult sensations what appear and could cultivate they are all opened up beforehand through self.
Last edited by retrofuturist on Mon May 06, 2019 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Personal attacks removed

User avatar
bridif1
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by bridif1 » Mon May 06, 2019 12:37 pm

auto wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:48 am
you are wrong.
Self isn't illusion. Without it you don't get assess to your body, won't come aware, won't get to awaken defilements so that you could even purify yourself.
self is needed to stop the breath, have the internal breath, assess the internal organs, purify in a way that seasonal sickness won't affect you, passing away naturally and easy.

When you do meditation, then what do you do there? the difficult sensations what appear and could cultivate they are all opened up beforehand through self.
Hi auto!

"Self", "I" and "me" are just theoretical frameworks and models from which we try to give meaning to our everyday experiences. That model has not always been present in our minds, and through the years, through language acquisition and through social conventions we get the idea of a sense of self becoming every time more solid.

There's no need of a "self" to assess the body; mental formations are the ones that analyse the subjective experiences felt, perceived and cognized by feelings, perception and consciousness.
There are khandhas working together, but there's nothing to be called "self" in those khandhas, nor outside them, nor within them, nor in the union of them.
There's an entity which is subject to change and which is present thanks to its supporting conditions. But there's not a permanent "self" existing through time.

Kind regards!

auto
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Mon May 06, 2019 2:15 pm

bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:37 pm
Hi auto!

"Self", "I" and "me" are just theoretical frameworks and models from which we try to give meaning to our everyday experiences. That model has not always been present in our minds, and through the years, through language acquisition and through social conventions we get the idea of a sense of self becoming every time more solid.
hi,
Not my problem if people abuse sense of self uselessly and carelessly making it to be a mere theory or language acquisition.

when i go and be quiet, then i come aware of what i am doing. In daily life during intense sensual activity when coming aware the activity will lose its allure and you are not anymore captivated.
bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:37 pm
There's no need of a "self" to assess the body; mental formations are the ones that analyse the subjective experiences felt, perceived and cognized by feelings, perception and consciousness.
this real physical body at first is a lump, nothing felt, nothing seen. If you want to feel your being(self) and then know that its aggravated and hence a dangerous period where when you don't sense and notice that state can lead you to certain damaging activities what make you decline. You need sense of self.
bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 12:37 pm
There are khandhas working together, but there's nothing to be called "self" in those khandhas, nor outside them, nor within them, nor in the union of them.
There's an entity which is subject to change and which is present thanks to its supporting conditions. But there's not a permanent "self" existing through time.
a drunk person needs wait till he gets sober naturally, he is no more drunk. The drunk person and sober person are one and the same.
Same is blue clothes wearing person now wears red clothes, it is same person. Difference is that in one case it is some social level whilst other is internal organs.

when you lose your physcal body here, and reborn in heaven you are the same person.

becoming aware is the moment where khandhas come conditioned(sankhara) before coming aware there is no arising and passing away or transience of the phenomena, phenomena is a-sankhara.


being aware of oneself is where the game is over for you, you can be in game but you will be not involved in it on that particular level, in body level you may still get affected hence you need get assess into body, coming aware yet isn't getting into body.

Kind regards!
[/quote]

User avatar
bridif1
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by bridif1 » Mon May 06, 2019 2:44 pm

auto wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 2:15 pm
this real physical body at first is a lump, nothing felt, nothing seen. If you want to feel your being(self) and then know that its aggravated and hence a dangerous period where when you don't sense and notice that state can lead you to certain damaging activities what make you decline. You need sense of self.

a drunk person needs wait till he gets sober naturally, he is no more drunk. The drunk person and sober person are one and the same.
Same is blue clothes wearing person now wears red clothes, it is same person. Difference is that in one case it is some social level whilst other is internal organs.

when you lose your physcal body here, and reborn in heaven you are the same person.
Let me ask you some things using a little bit of simple math and logic:
1) Do you agree with the 'law of identity' used in logic which tell us that X = X?
2) Do you agree that if I add and/or substract something to X, that new quatity is not X anymore?
3) Do you agree that if I add 1 to X, X+1 ≠ X?

If you agree on the above premises, then do you agree that if I change something in a person (however big or small that change might be), that person is not the same anymore?
If a person's feelings change, that person keeps being the same?
If a person's perceptions change, that person keeps being the same?
If a person's mental formations change, that person keeps being the same?
If a person's consciousness change, that person keeps being the same?
If the person's form changes (molecules, cells, connective tissue, etc.) that person keeps being the same?

Is person his feelings? His perception? His mental formations? His consciousness? His form?
Is that person the union of all of those? Something outside of them? Something within or underlying things? Something entirely different?

If you look at all the atoms and all the mental content of some X person just after being born, and you compare it to the "same" X person 60 years later, what stays constant?
The memories?
If I copy all the contents and information from a PC, and then put it all on a laptop, are the PC and the laptop the same thing just because they share the information?
Or maybe it is the causal conections?
If I eat meat and then I poop the wastes of that food, are the food and the poop the same thing?

Kind regards!

auto
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Mon May 06, 2019 3:53 pm

bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 2:44 pm
Let me ask you some things using a little bit of simple math and logic:
1) Do you agree with the 'law of identity' used in logic which tell us that X = X?
2) Do you agree that if I add and/or substract something to X, that new quatity is not X anymore?
3) Do you agree that if I add 1 to X, X+1 ≠ X?
i know that, this is how you can also get to know the keys to equations by using control.
bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 2:44 pm
If you agree on the above premises, then do you agree that if I change something in a person (however big or small that change might be), that person is not the same anymore?
If a person's feelings change, that person keeps being the same?
If a person's perceptions change, that person keeps being the same?
If a person's mental formations change, that person keeps being the same?
If a person's consciousness change, that person keeps being the same?
If the person's form changes (molecules, cells, connective tissue, etc.) that person keeps being the same?
form, feelings.. are not your self but they represent what you are. Hence if you are 5 kg less weight you are still same person.
bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 2:44 pm
Is person his feelings? His perception? His mental formations? His consciousness? His form?
Is that person the union of all of those? Something outside of them? Something within or underlying things? Something entirely different?
form, feelings.. are enough for to explain a person, as of what wiki says.
bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 2:44 pm
If you look at all the atoms and all the mental content of some X person just after being born, and you compare it to the "same" X person 60 years later, what stays constant?
The memories?
60 year old person has declined over time hence the bad back, sicknesses etc but it is same person who was once 5 year old, you can't skip SOL years.
bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 2:44 pm
If I copy all the contents and information from a PC, and then put it all on a laptop, are the PC and the laptop the same thing just because they share the information?
Or maybe it is the causal conections?
two buckets, one has water and other does not, when you put half water to other one, it does make the buckets same in some sense because now they have same level of water.
bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 2:44 pm
If I eat meat and then I poop the wastes of that food, are the food and the poop the same thing?
they are same, poop didn't magically appear.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cappuccino, Dinsdale, Google [Bot], robertk and 144 guests