No self theory do I get it right?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
bridif1
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by bridif1 » Mon May 06, 2019 4:20 pm

auto wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 3:53 pm
1) 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.

2) form, feelings.. are enough for to explain a person, as of what wiki says.

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) they are same, poop didn't magically appear.
I'll respond to each one of the 5 phrases:

1) "Represent" is for me the key word here. A representation is not the same thing as the thing represented.
Also, if I represent Brahma with the OM character, that does not mean that what it represented has an underlying reality.
I can represent whatever idea I want, no matter how fictitious that idea might be.

2) In the Dhamma language it is often spoken in a conventional and in a supramundane sense.
A good example of this is the concept of "world" as described in this sutta.
Or maybe you can see how the Buddha redefines some words, such as Kamma, when he defines it not only as action, but as intentional action (and the intention itself).

3) What do you mean by "same"?
I thought you agreed on the logical propositions before mentioned.
For something to be the same as something else, those two things must have the same components arranged in the same way, functioning exactly the same.
None of those criteria are fulfilled when you compare a baby and a 60 year old person; all its components (both physical and mental) are changed.
So, again, what do you mean by saying "it is the same person"?
What stays constant?

4) I disagree.
A thing is not just defined by the information it carries, but by the constituents that made that thing.
Also, if we accept that information is what mades a thing, the arrangement of the water molecules is not the same, so it does not contain the same information as the other bucket.

5) No, the food and the poop are not "the same".
It is undeniable that it's appearence and the arrangement of its molecules have change.
Maybe both the food and the resulting poop share some of its molecules, but if something changes from the food (or as in the mathematical example, if you add or substract something to X), that food is not the same as before (the X+Y or X-Y are not X anymore, but a new Z quantity).
I think you are mixing two different ideas: two things may share a causal and temporal conection to one another, but those two things or states are not the same if its inner parts or inner relations somehow change.
Using a past example: a baby who is born with a certain set of cells arranged in a particular fashion, after some years might have renew all of its cells and/or all of the particles that made those cells. Causally, the baby is one of the factors and conditions which allow the existence of the 60 year old person, but those two persons are not the same anymore, even if one is causally related to the other.
As most people do not understand all of this, we invent the idea of identity, which is incredibly useful socially and legally speaking. Furthermore, the idea of the conservation of the identity seems to be intuitive, especially since we have memories from previous stages of life.

Kind regards!

auto
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Mon May 06, 2019 5:10 pm

bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 4:20 pm
auto wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 3:53 pm
1) 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.

2) form, feelings.. are enough for to explain a person, as of what wiki says.

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) they are same, poop didn't magically appear.
I'll respond to each one of the 5 phrases:

1) "Represent" is for me the key word here. A representation is not the same thing as the thing represented.
Also, if I represent Brahma with the OM character, that does not mean that what it represented has an underlying reality.
I can represent whatever idea I want, no matter how fictitious that idea might be.

2) In the Dhamma language it is often spoken in a conventional and in a supramundane sense.
A good example of this is the concept of "world" as described in this sutta.
Or maybe you can see how the Buddha redefines some words, such as Kamma, when he defines it not only as action, but as intentional action (and the intention itself).

3) What do you mean by "same"?
I thought you agreed on the logical propositions before mentioned.
For something to be the same as something else, those two things must have the same components arranged in the same way, functioning exactly the same.
None of those criteria are fulfilled when you compare a baby and a 60 year old person; all its components (both physical and mental) are changed.
So, again, what do you mean by saying "it is the same person"?
What stays constant?

4) I disagree.
A thing is not just defined by the information it carries, but by the constituents that made that thing.
Also, if we accept that information is what mades a thing, the arrangement of the water molecules is not the same, so it does not contain the same information as the other bucket.

5) No, the food and the poop are not "the same".
It is undeniable that it's appearence and the arrangement of its molecules have change.
Maybe both the food and the resulting poop share some of its molecules, but if something changes from the food (or as in the mathematical example, if you add or substract something to X), that food is not the same as before (the X+Y or X-Y are not X anymore, but a new Z quantity).
I think you are mixing two different ideas: two things may share a causal and temporal conection to one another, but those two things or states are not the same if its inner parts or inner relations somehow change.
Using a past example: a baby who is born with a certain set of cells arranged in a particular fashion, after some years might have renew all of its cells and/or all of the particles that made those cells. Causally, the baby is one of the factors and conditions which allow the existence of the 60 year old person, but those two persons are not the same anymore, even if one is causally related to the other.
As most people do not understand all of this, we invent the idea of identity, which is incredibly useful socially and legally speaking. Furthermore, the idea of the conservation of the identity seems to be intuitive, especially since we have memories from previous stages of life.

Kind regards!
Don't make too much effort and enlarge the posts it starting to go beyond my attention spawn and IQ. I know what you mean you think self is illusion, i don't accept that

look at what Suttas say:
https://suttacentral.net/an9.8/en/sujato
‘A mendicant who is perfected—with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment—can’t transgress in five respects.
you can see there is someone achieved their own true goal. Also even if you have ended fetters of rebirth, that means you don't have corruptions what lead to rebirth, that doesn't mean that rebirth is delusion, you still could take a rebirth if want..yes it is assumption you can make from what is written in that Sutta quote.


also you may accuse me from not reading what yuo wrote, well but what about me telling about awarenss and realtime cultivation of it and sense of self and finding its seat..
you think that sense of self is solidified due social life etc. wow, I reputed it with when being quiet you become aware and i usually add further information to show causal relationship that what you then can do or what happens.

User avatar
bridif1
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by bridif1 » Mon May 06, 2019 5:16 pm

auto wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:10 pm
Don't make too much effort and enlarge the posts it starting to go beyond my attention spawn and IQ. I know what you mean you think self is illusion, i don't accept that

look at what Suttas say:
https://suttacentral.net/an9.8/en/sujato
‘A mendicant who is perfected—with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment—can’t transgress in five respects.
you can see there is someone achieved their own true goal. Also even if you have ended fetters of rebirth, that means you don't have corruptions what lead to rebirth, that doesn't mean that rebirth is delusion, you still could take a rebirth if want..yes it is assumption you can make from what is written in that Sutta.

also you may accuse me from not reading what yuo wrote, well but what about me telling about awarenss and realtime cultivation of it and sense of self and finding its seat..
SN 22:59
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Any kind of feeling whatever...

"Any kind of perception whatever...

"Any kind of determination whatever...

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

SN 42:2
"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Is feeling constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"Is perception constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
Kind regards!

auto
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Mon May 06, 2019 5:28 pm

bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:16 pm
..
classic,
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
look at here for answer:

https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato
The Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off. Ucchinnabhavanettiko, bhikkhave, tathāgatassa kāyo tiṭṭhati. As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans. Yāvassa kāyo ṭhassati, tāva naṃ dakkhanti devamanussā. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more. Kāyassa bhedā uddhaṃ jīvitapariyādānā na naṃ dakkhanti devamanussā.
also
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."
if you can't pinpoint Tathagata as truth or reality even in the present life then you have these above four positions to describe tathagata.

User avatar
bridif1
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by bridif1 » Mon May 06, 2019 5:41 pm

auto wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:28 pm
look at here for answer:

https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato
The Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off. Ucchinnabhavanettiko, bhikkhave, tathāgatassa kāyo tiṭṭhati. As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans. Yāvassa kāyo ṭhassati, tāva naṃ dakkhanti devamanussā. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more. Kāyassa bhedā uddhaṃ jīvitapariyādānā na naṃ dakkhanti devamanussā.
also
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."
if you can't pinpoint Tathagata as truth or reality even in the present life then you have these above four positions to describe tathagata.
I can't understand your point.

The sutta explicitly stated that you cannot pin down the Tathagata neither using the four position nor something apart from those four positions.

I recommend you to give a look to DN 9, which talks about some wrong view about the "self".

I know this quote it's not the most important part of the sutta, but I think it helps to illustrate my point:
"Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them."

Kind regards!

auto
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Mon May 06, 2019 5:50 pm

bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:41 pm
auto wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:28 pm
look at here for answer:

https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato
The Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off. Ucchinnabhavanettiko, bhikkhave, tathāgatassa kāyo tiṭṭhati. As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans. Yāvassa kāyo ṭhassati, tāva naṃ dakkhanti devamanussā. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more. Kāyassa bhedā uddhaṃ jīvitapariyādānā na naṃ dakkhanti devamanussā.
also
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."
if you can't pinpoint Tathagata as truth or reality even in the present life then you have these above four positions to describe tathagata.
I can't understand your point.

The sutta explicitly stated that you cannot pin down the Tathagata neither using the four position nor something apart from those four positions.

I recommend you to give a look to DN 9, which talks about some wrong view about the "self".

I know this quote it's not the most important part of the sutta, but I think it helps to illustrate my point:
"Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them."

Kind regards!
[/quote]
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life —
is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment
being described,
is described otherwise than
with these four positions:
..
"No, lord."

User avatar
bridif1
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by bridif1 » Mon May 06, 2019 6:05 pm

auto wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:50 pm
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life —
is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment
being described,
is described otherwise than
with these four positions:
It may be because english is not my native language, but I think we're not understading the same thing even when reading the same sutta.

As I understand this sutta, the Buddha is asking Anuradha how to describe the Tathagata. Both (Anuradha and the Buddha) agree that He cannot be described with any of these four positions, because:
1) The Tathagata is not the khandhas
2) The Tathagata is not in the khandhas
3) The Tathagata is not the sum of the khandhas
4) The Tathagata is not something without the khandhas

And after that, the Buddhas asks if he can be pin down as something apart from these four positions.
If you read the quoted part, the phrase is worded as a question, not as an affirmation.
Is it proper...?
(If the phrase was an affirmative sentence, then it would've been worded as "It is" instead of "Is it").

And finally, Anuradha recognizes that He cannot be pinned down outside the four positions. The Buddha congratulates Anuradha.
"No, lord."

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
Kind regards!

auto
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Mon May 06, 2019 6:29 pm

bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:05 pm
auto wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:50 pm
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life —
is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment
being described, with these four positions:
It may be because english is not my native language, but I think we're not understading the same thing even when reading the same sutta.

As I understand this sutta, the Buddha is asking Anuradha how to describe the Tathagata. Both (Anuradha and the Buddha) agree that He cannot be described with any of these four positions, because:
1) The Tathagata is not the khandhas
2) The Tathagata is not in the khandhas
3) The Tathagata is not the sum of the khandhas
4) The Tathagata is not something without the khandhas

And after that, the Buddhas asks if he can be pin down as something apart from these four positions.
If you read the quoted part, the phrase is worded as a question, not as an affirmation.
Is it proper...?
(If the phrase was an affirmative sentence, then it would've been worded as "It is" instead of "Is it").

And finally, Anuradha recognizes that He cannot be pinned down outside the four positions. The Buddha congratulates Anuradha.
"No, lord."

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
Kind regards!
well it seem you will stay with the "there is no self" part intead of practice and develop mind to abandon different kinds aquistions of selves and finding a deathless, unborn one.

User avatar
bridif1
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by bridif1 » Mon May 06, 2019 6:39 pm

auto wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:29 pm
well it seem you will stay with the "there is no self" part intead of practice and develop mind to abandon different kinds aquistions of selves and finding a deathless, unborn one.
The thing is, I'm so insistent with this point because I'm convinced (not just theoretically, but through practice and experience) that a correct understanding of anattā could bring tremendous effects in the way the world is perceived. And so, I cannot separate right understanding from practice; they are both part of the Path.

And this take us to the debate about how to understand anattā: is it just a strategy or is it a statement about reality itself?
Personally, I'm on the second team.

As enlightenment hasn't been achieved yet, I cannot be a 100% sure if I'm right or not. But it has worked so far.

Being honest, it surprised me how confident you were when you said that Bhikkhu Pesala was wrong. That position seems like the so much criticized position of "only this is true, and everything else is false" that the Buddha often debated.

Have a wonderful day!
Kind regards!

auto
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Tue May 07, 2019 11:28 am

bridif1 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:39 pm
auto wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:29 pm
well it seem you will stay with the "there is no self" part intead of practice and develop mind to abandon different kinds aquistions of selves and finding a deathless, unborn one.
The thing is, I'm so insistent with this point because I'm convinced (not just theoretically, but through practice and experience) that a correct understanding of anattā could bring tremendous effects in the way the world is perceived. And so, I cannot separate right understanding from practice; they are both part of the Path.

And this take us to the debate about how to understand anattā: is it just a strategy or is it a statement about reality itself?
Personally, I'm on the second team.

As enlightenment hasn't been achieved yet, I cannot be a 100% sure if I'm right or not. But it has worked so far.

Being honest, it surprised me how confident you were when you said that Bhikkhu Pesala was wrong. That position seems like the so much criticized position of "only this is true, and everything else is false" that the Buddha often debated.

Have a wonderful day!
Kind regards!
You can't locate asmi-mana/conceit but still it is knowable, sense-able, it is energetical it can affect how you move your body or perceive things,

The anatta is characteristic of conditioned phenomena. If you read the above, then you should understand how your thoughts, body movements and speech are conditioned phenomena.

when your actions are based on much greed then saying that this is mine..i deserve. That self is not an illusion or no-self in context of it doesn't exist..instead that self will get sane again by calming down sankharas.

to remove asmi mana it takes more than calming down. There is unborn, deathless thing what when found will result in same thing what you would have reached with shankaras induced actions+ gone through kamma and personally experienced results of your sankhara based actions in existence. Hence you could say birth is ended. This is here and now, not a world view about there is no self.


sankharas born actions resulted effects subside you are released for a while till things crop up again.. the release can be gotten also by non-doing, non-grasping hence,
when you hear again about there is no free will, no doer.. again when the context not explained there is not even a change to result in right view...well the context needs be right too, but no-selfer won't have right context..hmm

User avatar
bridif1
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by bridif1 » Tue May 07, 2019 1:01 pm

auto wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 11:28 am
...
As I understand, asmimana is the residue of a whole life thinking in terms of and assuming a self which is the same from birth to death. As a self was assume to exist permanently there, an obvious result is comparing that self to others, seeing it as superior, inferior or equal to those other selves.
It is only through constant mindfulness, pondering, reflection and inmersion that a person ends that residual internalized process, once and for all.

In SN 22:89, Khemaka explains it like this
"Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean & spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."
How can a self exist, and suddenly stop existing?
When I say there is no doer, I say that instead there is action, there is sankharas, there is kamma, there are khandhas, there is speech, there are thoughts and there is bodily action. No need of self which is a doer.

Also, MN 44 explains this:
"There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One."

Saying, "Yes, lady," Visakha the lay follower delighted & rejoiced in what Dhammadinna the nun had said. Then he asked her a further question: "'The origination of self-identification, the origination of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which origination of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"
"But, lady, how does self-identification come about?"

"There is the case, friend Visakha, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identification comes about."
Have a nice day!
Kind regards!

auto
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Tue May 07, 2019 2:21 pm

bridif1 wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 1:01 pm
auto wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 11:28 am
...
As I understand, asmimana is the residue of a whole life thinking in terms of and assuming a self which is the same from birth to death. As a self was assume to exist permanently there, an obvious result is comparing that self to others, seeing it as superior, inferior or equal to those other selves.
It is only through constant mindfulness, pondering, reflection and inmersion that a person ends that residual internalized process, once and for all.
you don't think practically,

when you have sensual urges, what you going to do then to get a release? are your going to take an action or do you know about the non-grasping thing.
bridif1 wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 1:01 pm
How can a self exist, and suddenly stop existing?
When I say there is no doer, I say that instead there is action, there is sankharas, there is kamma, there are khandhas, there is speech, there are thoughts and there is bodily action. No need of self which is a doer.
you just change words, rather you leave words out where they are due. When you are aware, you can't ignore the self or sense of self, feeling of self.

Its useless to say that its no self when the sense of self is real and what you say is what you think, reality doesn't align with what you think.
--
yea yea consciousness, feelings, form isn't the self, i know it that they aren't. I mean who is dumb enough to think that their sight is their self, right? deluded who are in rage, when you took a candy from a child, there is numerous defilements in body what even if you say 10000 times they are not self you still feel mental agony and pain.
and yet, you claim there is no self. cool easy feast for mara once your protective body is not capable to host your soul.


The actions you take based on urges to satisfy them the results of these actions are conditioned, conditioned things are arising, persisting and passing away. They are anicca, if anicca they are dhukka and if dukkha then they are no self..

User avatar
bridif1
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by bridif1 » Tue May 07, 2019 7:23 pm

auto wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 2:21 pm
you don't think practically
I hope I'm understanding your point properly...

I think that seeing anattā in the way I understand it (which is not a perspective invented by me, by the way; I just learnt about it and tried to see what were the results of putting into practice) is incredibly practical.

When sensual desires arise, I don't see them as "my desires", because there not a "me" who has a desire.
The desire is just a product of past kamma, present vipaka and the stimuli detected by the mind.
In that way, I don't get caught in the flow of emotions that tend to arise when we see the desires as "mine"; I just go back and see the things for what they are: just natural products of conditionality. Things are not taken personal anymore (or, at least, not as much as before understanding anattā).

Kind regards!

auto
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Wed May 08, 2019 1:53 pm

bridif1 wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 7:23 pm
auto wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 2:21 pm
you don't think practically
I hope I'm understanding your point properly...

I think that seeing anattā in the way I understand it (which is not a perspective invented by me, by the way; I just learnt about it and tried to see what were the results of putting into practice) is incredibly practical.

When sensual desires arise, I don't see them as "my desires", because there not a "me" who has a desire.
The desire is just a product of past kamma, present vipaka and the stimuli detected by the mind.
In that way, I don't get caught in the flow of emotions that tend to arise when we see the desires as "mine"; I just go back and see the things for what they are: just natural products of conditionality. Things are not taken personal anymore (or, at least, not as much as before understanding anattā).

Kind regards!
no you don't understand.

desires are yours they push you to do things what without having those desires you wouldn't do. And large part you don't notice them you are already acting on them. You literally need hold on to something to start feel the currents.

when you have a desire, lets say you desire coffee, and when you say no, you forbid to have coffee, it will cause another sensation in body which is hard to bear.

but muddled peeps won't feel anything, they need prison(where you can't escape and apology away like you do in your above post telling desires are not taken personal anymore) and prisonmates to introduce them to certain humiliating feelings.

you need those feelings and it is a boon if you need go so low to feel them, and these feelings are effects from removing a block in an energetical body what you could have done with your mind before letting things go insensitive.


not being able to sense the self and see its importance etc, is a handicap and sure sign of being dependent on environment and daily life to remove energetical blocks.

Sitting in a wheelchair most of your life? it could be because of emotions you can't let go and have no idea about it either. There are abundance of wheelchair, not capable to do anything events. Do you still write them off as natural products..or do you want to have a say..ah right you also think here that there is no self, happily will let evil currents guide you..when something mentally hard approach, you hide yourself away thinking they are nothing to do with you, this way perfectly somehow convince yourself that its natural products of conditionality and you have no free will here, thinking like that will sheer you up and when you successfully avoided those events you call it you are free from suffering?

knowing that,
peeps also abuse desires to get things done, by sacrifices and all but it will result in debt, it is in that context that clinging to rites and rituals wont cause decline for SE, you yourself don't have to be the doer or be aware, you can still be participant of dark rituals globewise etc unknowingly.
Right you don't prolly also believe in voodoo, spells and such things, because it is so yesterday?

auto
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Wed May 08, 2019 3:39 pm

https://suttacentral.net/an1.268-277/en/sujato
269 269
“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for a person accomplished in view to take any condition as pleasant. “Aṭṭhānametaṃ, bhikkhave, anavakāso yaṃ diṭṭhisampanno puggalo kañci saṅkhāraṃ sukhato upagaccheyya. Netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.
But it is possible for an ordinary person to take some condition as pleasant.” Ṭhānañca kho etaṃ, bhikkhave, vijjati yaṃ puthujjano kañci saṅkhāraṃ sukhato upagaccheyya. Ṭhānametaṃ vijjatī”ti.
270 270
“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for a person accomplished in view to take anything as self. “Aṭṭhānametaṃ, bhikkhave, anavakāso yaṃ diṭṭhisampanno puggalo kañci dhammaṃ attato upagaccheyya. Netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.
But it is possible for an ordinary person to take something as self.” Ṭhānañca kho etaṃ, bhikkhave, vijjati yaṃ puthujjano kañci dhammaṃ attato upagaccheyya. Ṭhānametaṃ vijjatī”ti.
see conditioned things are suffering, sankharas are dukkha. Dhamma is not self. Dhamma supposedly is object of mind, thoughts.

dhamma: http://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/d/dhamma
Dhamma,1 (m.& rarely nt.) [Ved.dharma & dharman,the latter a formation like karman (see kamma for expln of subj.& obj.meanings); dhṛ (see dhāreti) to hold,support:that which forms a foundation and upholds= constitution..
..
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.59/en/sujato
“Mendicants, form is not-self. “Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, anattā.
For if form were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: Rūpañca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe:
‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ ‘evaṃ me rūpaṃ hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti.
But because form is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t compel form: Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ anattā, tasmā rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe:
‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ ‘evaṃ me rūpaṃ hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti.
take that Sutta, you see you can't command your thoughts, you can't command your door open what you see/rupa.

It is not about if there is self or not as of like your biological body, you can't command your body to stand up and walk while you relaxing.


I mean peeps jsut take the first sentence and forget the rest that its telling if form would be self you could command it..when reading that sentence you can't assume things like there is no self, it is conflicting with the message.

further,
What do you think, mendicants? Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave,
Is form permanent or impermanent?” rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā”ti?
“Impermanent, sir.” “Aniccaṃ, bhante”.
“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā”ti?
“Suffering, sir.” “Dukkhaṃ, bhante”.
“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: “Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ:
‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?
“No, sir.” “No hetaṃ, bhante”.
form is impermanent, objects of eye organ change, because they change they are suffering, it is not meant that sometimes it is flowers other times it is houses, it means the object falls away and reappears, this process is painful and thus anatta, it is not from dimension where things doesn't flicker.
There are altered states where you can use your mind to lift rupa/objects there they aren't biological eye organ objects but you still have seeing. Guys you just haven't experienced or have no discernment and lack of imagination what is possible and more so how to practice to move towards that way.

also there is unconditioned phenomena
https://suttacentral.net/an3.47/en/sujato
Characteristics of the Unconditioned Asaṅkhatalakkhaṇasutta
“Unconditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. “Tīṇimāni, bhikkhave, asaṅkhatassa asaṅkhatalakkhaṇāni.
What three? Katamāni tīṇi?
No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident.
Na uppādo paññāyati, na vayo paññāyati, na ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ paññāyati.
These are the three characteristics of unconditioned phenomena.” Imāni kho, bhikkhave, tīṇi asaṅkhatassa asaṅkhatalakkhaṇānī”ti.
no arising no vanishing, no change but persisting or staying is evident.


if you now think then there is phenomena what is self and can be commanded. Learn to meditate, make progress and you can gain command.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chownah, SarathW and 152 guests