Anatta and Dukkha

[auto]

soul is the shining luminous one what enters the body. Soul is not the body. I think it can't be defined by khandhas so it is not 6th nor any of these.

Buddha stated the consciousness is the khanda that takes rebirth. He also stated the consciousness doesn't remain the same.

From where did you learned that there is no self? how did you got to know it?

Through the words of awakened ones, through analytical contemplation, and from reflecting on my own practice. There doesn't need to be a self for awareness to manifest. Adding a self to the mix is what westerners call a security blanket.

okay.

https://suttacentral.net/mn74/en/sujato

Aggivessana, this body is physical. It’s made up of the four primary elements, produced by mother and father, built up from rice and porridge, liable to impermanence, to wearing away and erosion, to breaking up and destruction. You should see it as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self.

Doing so, you’ll give up desire, affection, and subservience to the body.

..

At a time when you feel a pleasant feeling, you don’t feel a painful or neutral feeling;
..At a time when you feel a painful feeling, you don’t feel a pleasant or neutral feeling;
..
Pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings are impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away, and cease.

Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings.
Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’

the rebirth seem to be regards to desire fades away, and coming free and knowing about being free. The knowledge of rebirth being ended is just certain type of knowing what can be also expanded or correlated with macro events like actual birth and death.

Don't say self isn't requiered, it is requiered for advanged practice. Advanged because you make it so telling about sense of self is unnessesary to the point you make yourself sound polar opposite.

also jiva - livelyhood. ājiva - wrong livelyhood. jiva is individual soul. You need have pro-jiva view.


edit,

A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, Rūpasaṅkhayavimutto kho, vaccha, tathāgato gambhīro appameyyo duppariyogāḷho— like the ocean. seyyathāpi mahāsamuddo.
‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply. Upapajjatīti na upeti, na upapajjatīti na upeti, upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatīti na upeti, neva upapajjati na na upapajjatīti na upeti.


Any feeling … perception … choices …
consciousness by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. Yena viññāṇena tathāgataṃ paññāpayamāno paññāpeyya taṃ viññāṇaṃ tathāgatassa pahīnaṃ ucchinnamūlaṃ tālāvatthukataṃ anabhāvaṅkataṃ āyatiṃ anuppādadhammaṃ. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of consciousness. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, Viññāṇasaṅkhayavimutto kho, vaccha, tathāgato gambhīro appameyyo duppariyogāḷho— like the ocean. seyyathāpi mahāsamuddo. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.” Upapajjatīti na upeti, na upapajjatīti na upeti, upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatīti na upeti, neva upapajjati na na upapajjatīti na upetī”ti.

see, realized one can't be reconed in terms of khadhas.

debate about four positions in another no self thread but there you see the point that when you can't recon Tathagata then you have these four positions to refer to him when try to make point about Realized One.

[Jerafreyr]

“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 origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling.… Such is perception.… Such are fabrications.… Such is consciousness, such its origination, 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.

- Khemaka sutta.

A realized one is not the khanda nor is he apart from the khanda. Not the same, not different, not both and not neither.

[auto]

“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 origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling.… Such is perception.… Such are fabrications.… Such is consciousness, such its origination, 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.

- Khemaka sutta.

yes khadhas are not self, you are not khadhas unless you still identify with them.

i identify with sense of self which is not khandha.

and its not "i am" as conceit or desire, obsession. Btw you have to see the sensation of conceit when referring to i am and make it cease. Without the right sense of self you have no reference point.

you can remove afflictions many times per day a lot comes back after night time sleep. Do you have skill to remove afflictions and discover sensations what you were identified before but now you see through it and not identify..there are many of those sensations therefore i assume the knowledge is general, you will need keep purify and the knowing comes stronger.

proper sense of self and following it at least for me were crucial to get to the brain. + concentration i could do when dwelling in certain spacious place after destroy urge to quit meditation.


and before sense of self, i just said something conceited in my mind (like i can fly, telling it in a certain way) it liberated particles in my lower back. Took a while till i got into concentration or state after the evocation depleted, no particles emitted anymore.

[Germann]

If no one is suffering, why is it suffering?

The is 5 focuses of identity (form, feeling, perception, mental formation, consciousness). There is identity, but there is no permanent identity.
When some one buy a car, and this car is broken, this person suffer about it, why this person suffer? Because there is identification with car, there is me, mine, myself.
This self-identification is caused by ignorance. When there is no ignorance, one sees, hears, smels, tastes, tuches, thinks this world as it is, as a film, as illusion, as not me, not mine, not my self, as just seen, heared, smeld, tasted, tuched, thinked, just as information, there is no interpretation of information, no prolifération, no fermentation, no being-in this information, no desire for this information, no suffering about this information.

The suffering of physical discomfort and the suffering of conditionality is experienced by Arahant. But he, in fact, does not exist - there is no such paramattha dhamma as "Arahant." If there is no one who suffers, you cannot talk about suffering. There is no such suffering, when no one would suffer.

[Germann]

For as long as we experience as 'we', we speak of 'we'. Even after, it can be convenient to use 'I' and 'we'.

Talking about people is talking about something that doesn't exist, so suffering doesn't become someone else's. And if no one is suffering, why is it suffering? Obviously, this suffering is purely nominal.

Suffering is real, it is experienced. It is just not necessary. But the kammic patterns have their momentum, the habit is entrenched.

No one needs to suffer for there to be suffering. Just like experience in general does not need an experiencer.

Such suffering, when no one suffers - does not exist at all.
Non-existent beings - they don’t suffer at all.
It means that Theravadin "suffering" is sophistry.

This is no more real suffering than the suffering of a stone on the planet Mars, which no one has ever seen.

[Germann]

What are the similarities between the two? You take a certain aspect/notion of the teachings (Anatta), then you reduce it to your own definition by negating other possible interpretations (ontology), then you make wrong conclusions (If no one is suffering, why is it suffering?).

The living being, satta, in Theravada refers to non-existent things. There is no such paramattha dhamma.

You will argue that, apart from paramattha dhammas, is there really something else that is as real?

[Germann]

Metaphysical questions are wrong view. You're not going to disprove Buddhism by going down a line of thinking that's irrelevant to Buddhism.

When no one exists, to talk about suffering is pure metaphysics.

Then according to your thinking, self driving cars cannot move since there is no driver.

There was an original programmer who programmed those cars, likewise your programming is in your genetics.

Regardless, self driving cars still move without a driver, and you also move without a self.

Besides, where does your "self" end, and where does the rest of the world begin?

Burning fuel can be called suffering, piston movement can be called suffering, it is possible to talk about the suffering of the gearbox and the suffering of the crankshaft. This is just as real suffering than the suffering of a non-existent person.

Therefore, Theravadin's "suffering" is a sophism.

[budo]

When no one exists, to talk about suffering is pure metaphysics.

Then according to your thinking, self driving cars cannot move since there is no driver.

There was an original programmer who programmed those cars, likewise your programming is in your genetics.

Regardless, self driving cars still move without a driver, and you also move without a self.

Besides, where does your "self" end, and where does the rest of the world begin?

Burning fuel can be called suffering, piston movement can be called suffering, it is possible to talk about the suffering of the gearbox and the suffering of the crankshaft. This is just as real suffering than the suffering of a non-existent person.

Therefore, Theravadin's "suffering" is a sophism.

If they can feel, then yes. However, they can't feel, so they don't suffer. Feelings don't imply a self either, so your analogy to mechanical parts is wrong.

[Germann]

Then according to your thinking, self driving cars cannot move since there is no driver.

There was an original programmer who programmed those cars, likewise your programming is in your genetics.

Regardless, self driving cars still move without a driver, and you also move without a self.

Besides, where does your "self" end, and where does the rest of the world begin?

Burning fuel can be called suffering, piston movement can be called suffering, it is possible to talk about the suffering of the gearbox and the suffering of the crankshaft. This is just as real suffering than the suffering of a non-existent person.

Therefore, Theravadin's "suffering" is a sophism.

If they can feel, then yes. However, they can't feel, so they don't suffer. Feelings don't imply a self either, so your analogy to mechanical parts is wrong.

There is a car, but this is not a man. There are paramattha dhammas aggregates, but but this is not a man.

[budo]

Burning fuel can be called suffering, piston movement can be called suffering, it is possible to talk about the suffering of the gearbox and the suffering of the crankshaft. This is just as real suffering than the suffering of a non-existent person.

Therefore, Theravadin's "suffering" is a sophism.

If they can feel, then yes. However, they can't feel, so they don't suffer. Feelings don't imply a self either, so your analogy to mechanical parts is wrong.

There is a car, but it is not a man. There are paramattha dhammas aggregates, but they are not a man.

Consciousness suffers when it is connected to a six sense base, cars aren't conscious, so they can't feel. Still, consciousness is not a self either.

You still haven't proven there to be a self. The onus is on you to prove self, not on others to prove no-self.

[Germann]

If they can feel, then yes. However, they can't feel, so they don't suffer. Feelings don't imply a self either, so your analogy to mechanical parts is wrong.

There is a car, but it is not a man. There are paramattha dhammas aggregates, but they are not a man.

Consciousness suffers when it is connected to a six sense base, cars aren't conscious, so they can't feel. Still, consciousness is not a self either.

You still haven't proven there to be a self. The onus is on you to prove self, not on others to prove no-self.

I am a stream of experience, this stream of experience exists. Man is, in fact, a stream of experience. (Not in Theravada. In Theravada, the flow of experience cannot be called a person: a person does not exist, in fact.) Man is, in fact, a stream of experience: changeable, non-permanent, unlike the permanent atman.

Are you saying that the subject of suffering is the dhamma of consciousness? Then Theravada religion is not for people, but for dhammas. Since consciousness dhamma is impermanent, it does not need a religion to end suffering: in any case, such a subject ceases and suffering ends without the Path.

If we are talking about such "suffering", when no one really suffers - this is sophism. Suffering in case of total non-existence of the one who suffers, does not happen by definition. Such things do not consider suffering and do not call suffering, as they do not call suffering the fall of meteorites to Mars.

[Germann]

Consciousness, when in reality there is no one who is aware, is also a sophism. A purely mechanical process, which no one observes at all, can be called such a “consciousness”.

[cappuccino]

Consciousness, when in reality there is no one who is aware, is also a sophism. A purely mechanical process, which no one observes at all, can be called such a “consciousness”.

reminds me of Advaita

[Jerafreyr]

Consciousness, when in reality there is no one who is aware, is also a sophism. A purely mechanical process, which no one observes at all, can be called such a “consciousness”.

Consciousness does not suffer, nor does it crave. Consciousness is like light in that it knows objects.

Sankhara is the portfolio of dukkha.

[budo]

Consciousness, when in reality there is no one who is aware, is also a sophism. A purely mechanical process, which no one observes at all, can be called such a “consciousness”.

Consciousness does not suffer, nor does it crave. Consciousness is like light in that it knows objects.

Sankhara is the portfolio of dukkha.

Suffering is an object consciousness can know. It can also know sukkha as well.