Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:46 pm

ToVincent wrote: . . .
This is just an opinion based on hard facts, from the suttas with strict parallels.
Facts as you, in your opinion, understand them. Thank you for sharing them.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by ToVincent » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:04 pm

tiltbillings wrote: Facts as you, in your opinion, understand them. Thank you for sharing them.
Sure; but that kind of rhetoric is proper to some kind of people; who don't want you to understand.
The "red herring crowd".

Now when Buddha says that the kanhdhas are not "yours", (even when you make them so, as clinging khandhas), he means that the "other" is not yours, in a way.
He means that what you experience is the "other's" stuff (feeling, perception, etc.) [read my previous post]. But it's not "your" stuff.
However what you can do is to realize that; then abandon the senses. Then you transcend and get liberated; because you go above all that.

And I shall stop at that.
People have enough material now, to think by themselves (with these early suttas).
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:14 pm

ToVincent wrote: . . .
Thank you for sharing your opinions.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by ToVincent » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:17 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
ToVincent wrote: . . .
Thank you for sharing your opinions.
...based on hard facts.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:26 pm

ToVincent wrote: ...based on hard facts.
Facts as you, in your opinion, understand them. In this you are no different than anyone else, in my opinion, which is a fact as I understand it.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15836
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:31 pm

ToVincent wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:
ToVincent wrote: Buddha did talk about a "doer" and an "other"..
I am unable to work out what the relevance of this statment is to the topic
Well, "observing feeling" is observing what the "other" does - and "thought substitution" is doing what the "doer" might willfully do.
Really? Can you show where that is explained in the suttas?

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
The Thinker
Posts: 805
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:12 pm
Location: UK

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by The Thinker » Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:20 pm

ToVincent wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: That's better.
Just the tip of the iceberg. Not for the coward.
murphythecat8 wrote:......
Some sources on the Āgamas in english:
https://justpaste.it/yzrn
.
Many thanks ToVincent, much appreciated :namaste:
"Watch your heart, observe. Be the observer, be the knower, not the condition" Ajahn Sumedho volume5 - The Wheel Of Truth

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by ToVincent » Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:15 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
ToVincent wrote: Well, "observing feeling" is observing what the "other" does - and "thought substitution" is doing what the "doer" might willfully do.
Really? Can you show where that is explained in the suttas?
I hope that we have settled the "other" and the "doer" (the "you",) controversy by now.
Again AN 6.38 (SA 459) should do that properly.

Now, as stated in SN 12.15
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 60#p398998
"what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing." (SN 12.15)

What arises are the khandhas that are not yours. Impermanent khandhas.
(khandha: SN 22.33, body: SN 12.37, ayatana: SN 35.138, etc. that are "not yours" - all with parallels)
I believe this to be a fact that Buddha did say so, if there are parallels. And from now on, if I say that a sutta has parallels, I will consider it to be an early sutta with much probability.

So, things arise that are not yours, and these things are suffering.
That is the "other's", if that is "not yours".
What is suffering is the "other's" suffering.
That is simple logic; not just an opinion. Buddha said that this is "not yours", so this simple logic follows.
If it is not you, then it is something else. OK?
So already, we have a "you" and we have an "other". But that, Buddha did explain it clearly in AN 6.38 (SA 459).
I know that you are down under, and that you might have your head upside down - but Tilt is not down under; nor was the Buddha at the time. (it is meant to be a joke).

So what can the "you" do about that something that is "not yours" (not "his")?
Note that this "you" is not either a "self", because it is not the "other". So there is no continuity.

So what the "you" does, is to experience the khandhas produced by the "other" (a.k.a. nāmarūpa, or higher in the chain of causation: Ignorance). The body is made to be felt says SN 12.37. Felt by what? - By the "other". "You" are made to be felt by the "other".
So not only these khandhas are not "yours"; but they are not even made "for you". Which should have you disgusted by now (MN 22-MA 200).

When you are experiencing these khandhas, knowing with awareness, that they are not yours, you are "observing" them. That is what you are "doing". And you might also experience them as "yours", if you are not wise.
As I said above:
"observing feeling" is observing what the "other" does - and "thought substitution" is doing what the "doer" might willfully do.
So, how the "you" can get out of this suffering khandha mess? (that the "you" has made "his" (SN 22.47-SA 45, SA 63 - major sutta) as clinging khandhas).
Well, the early nikayas are full of suttas teaching "you" how to give up the senses; a.k.a. "the escape". Thought substitution is one way to do it. Not making these khandhas ours is another; and guarding the doors of the sense faculties yet another one. In any case, abandonning the attraction for the senses and for the forms is the general idea.

Now, what I would like to know is, if you (Mike,) believe in a "doer" and an "other" or not?
It would be nice that you answer that simple question.
If not, what is your "interpretation" of AN 6.38 (SA 459)?. I think it might be difficult to interpret something that has obviously been stated by the Buddha.


Note:
I would advise people to stop at my previous posts, and work the suttas; if they want to understand what's above. Please , also refer to this quite accurate sketch https://justpaste.it/v08v
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:31 pm

ToVincent wrote: ...based on hard facts.
Facts as you, in your opinion, understand them. In this you are no different than anyone else, in my opinion, which is a fact as I understand it.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by ToVincent » Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:44 pm

The Thinker wrote:
ToVincent wrote: Some sources on the Āgamas in english:
https://justpaste.it/yzrn
Many thanks ToVincent, much appreciated
You are welcome.

Note: I had checked the Urls before I put the link on DW. The Āgama research group page was working alright. (http://agamaresearch.ddbc.edu.tw/sa%E1% ... ta-agama-3)
Then the site went down.
Please do download the suttas, in case


Metta

Edited: The link is working properly again on Thursday October 6.
Last edited by ToVincent on Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15836
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:02 am

ToVincent wrote: That is simple logic; not just an opinion. Buddha said that this is "not yours", so this simple logic follows.
If it is not you, then it is something else. OK?
Not OK.
ToVincent wrote: So already, we have a "you" and we have an "other".
This doesn't correspond with how I understand anatta, sorry. "Not yours" doesn't logically mean that there is some "other" that things belong to...

:coffee:
Mike

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by ToVincent » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:25 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
ToVincent wrote: That is simple logic; not just an opinion. Buddha said that this is "not yours", so this simple logic follows.
If it is not you, then it is something else. OK?
Not OK.
ToVincent wrote: So already, we have a "you" and we have an "other".
This doesn't correspond with how I understand anatta, sorry. "Not yours" doesn't logically mean that there is some "other" that things belong to...
Let me reformulate that:
If something "is not yours", then logically it belongs to some"thing" else.
I agree that you might not be ok with that. But it would be good that you explain how you see this "not yours" logically.
Wiping out with the back of your hand, a reading of some major early suttas, with quite strict parallels, (in which Buddha is very clear about actions done by "one's own", and actions done by "another"), ask for more than a "not ok!".

Same thing for what seems to be still, an anatta conundrum within you.
Anatta can have absolutely nothing to do with the Self (the pervasive and continuous Self); but having just to do with the self as being (satta). If you have not yet understood this nuance, then I shall feel much karuna for you.
A self (atta), has nothing to do with the Self (Atta); because it dies, and it is not therefore continuous; hence not "Self" (Atta).
Atta (Self, with a big S) is a "Being" that does not die; while atta (self, with a small s) is a "being" that dies.
Therefore atta has nothing to do with Atta. I think that if anatta was spelled anAtta, it would be clearer.
Cavil?

Again, I shall serve you with some exerpts from AN 6.38:
Brahmin, do not say thus, do not see thus — for, I have seen it, I have heard it.
How could one stepping forward, or one stepping back, say thus, ‘There is no action of one’s own; there is no action done by others.’?”
“Māhaṃ, brāhmaṇa, evaṃvādiṃ evaṃdiṭṭhiṃ addasaṃ vā assosiṃ vā. Kathañhi nāma sayaṃ abhikkamanto, sayaṃ paṭikkamanto evaṃ vakkhati: ‘natthi attakāro, natthi parakāro’ti".

whose SN 459 parallel gives:

If there is a dhātu of effort (firmness, emerging, acting, staying still,) so that beings know there is effort (firmness, emerging, acting, staying still,) this in beings is self-acting; this is other acting.

We have seen previously that the difference between AN 6.38 and SN 459 is just about a matter of dhatus (element/expression/manifestation). With a strong probability that the manifestation (element) of initiative/acting (ārabbhadhātu/ 造作界 ) is commmon to both.
Anyway, might there be only one dhatu in common, the "atthi attakāro" would be true.

And I shall serve you the other excerpt from SN 12.37:
Bhikkhus, this body is not yours, nor does it belong to others. It is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt.
Nāyaṃ, bhikkhave, kāyo tumhākaṃ napi aññesaṃ. Purāṇamidaṃ, bhikkhave, kammaṃ abhisaṅkhataṃ abhisañcetayitaṃ vedaniyaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ.

whose SA 358 parallel gives:

This body is neither your own, nor any others. That is to say, the six contact-sense spheres were brought about by former making up, by karma, by volition, and are experienced as this body.
Also Buddha, in the other suttas (with parallels) on "not yours", viz. SN 35.138 and SN 22.33, is teaching you to abandon the khandhas and the ajjhattikāni āyatanāni (internal sphere/base of senses)

And I am not going to repeat the suttas (with parallels,) mentioned in my previous posts; in which there is this crucial notion of: "neither from this, nor apart from this".

I hope this is enough to make it clear that there is a "doer" (satta) acting, and an "other" acting (let's call this "other" ignorance, as the cause of it all).
I know it goes against the late Buddhism aberrancy; but that is just the way Buddha did formulate it in the early suttas.
This is the truth ignorance is longing for.

My question remains: "do you believe or not, in an atthi attakāro, and atthi parakāro (There is an action of 'one’s own', and there is an action done by 'other'?".
It would be nice if you could give this community, a clear "yes" or "no" answer to start with.


The question is about the nature of what the "other" does and what the "doer" does.
Are we observing "our" feelings? Are we observing the "other" feelings, that we make "ours" through the descent of the sense faculties, that come from a wrong view of Self that entails appropriation, then sensuality (over sensitivity)?
What is taught by Buddha to end the suffering - Thought substitution for instance. Then who is in charge of these thought substitution? The "doer" or the "other"?
I think the early suttas are all clear about that.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15836
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:58 pm

ToVincent wrote: If something "is not yours", then logically it belongs to some"thing" else.
I agree that you might not be ok with that. But it would be good that you explain how you see this "not yours" logically. .
It doesn't appear to logically follow to me.

For it to logically follow requires an additional assumption: That if there is something , then there has to be someone that the thing belongs to.

I'm sorry, but we seem a fundamental disagreement over the first step of your argument, so the best course of action might be to simply agree that we currently have irreconcilable views.

:anjali:
Mike

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by davidbrainerd » Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:28 pm

Nevermind. I don't think i want to get into this thread.
Last edited by davidbrainerd on Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by davidbrainerd » Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:50 pm

...

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by ToVincent » Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:40 pm

Hi David.
davidbrainerd wrote: My interpretation is he's rebuking a brahmin nihilist no-selfer who takes the position not only that I have no self which controls the body but also that there is no uber-self controlling all bodies. Self-doer=an individual self. Other-doer=a puppet master God controlling all bodies at once.
May I remind you of this sutta:
Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism.
But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism.
SN 12.17
davidbrainerd wrote: Buddha is not saying we must accept the existence of both of these, but only that in order to be logical at least one of them must be accepted.
I would agree if he had clearly said so.
But what he said was about the middle way. That is to say there is suffering, and neither the "other", nor "oneself" is creating suffering on its own. But both Ignorance (the "other"/para,) and (the ignorance in) oneself (atta) are producing it. (read 22.47 for the latter - the element (expression/manifestation) of ignorance).
This is again the "neither from this, nor apart from this" concept.
And again, by abandoning willfully the sphere of senses, and the sphere of forms*, "you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two". You will have transcended the "that" and the "therein" [SN 35.95 (SA 312)].

* What "oneself"/atta and the "other"/para are producing. The sphere of senses, and the sphere of forms.


On your musing about the "body is not yours", I don't quite follow you. But that is your point of view.
What I can say, is that you need this body to to tell about the four noble truths. And the paradox is that it does not go along with the "other" expectations.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by ToVincent » Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:42 pm

mikenz66 wrote: For it to logically follow requires an additional assumption: That if there is something, then there has to be someone that the thing belongs to.
You have understood very well what I meant; so lets not get into sophistry. The thing (as you put it in italic) is a khandha. Like a feeling, for instance. So the question is: "does this feeling, for instance, belong to the other (para) or to you (atta)?
mikenz66 wrote: ...the best course of action might be to simply agree that we currently have irreconcilable views.
Maybe,
But if you could answer the question:
"do you believe or not, in an atthi attakāro, and atthi parakāro (There is an action of 'one’s own', and there is an action done by 'other'?".
we could at least know on what ground you are standing.
A "yes" or "no" will do.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15836
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:06 pm

ToVincent wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: For it to logically follow requires an additional assumption: That if there is something, then there has to be someone that the thing belongs to.
You have understood very well what I meant; so lets not get into sophistry. The thing (as you put it in italic) is a khandha. Like a feeling, for instance. So the question is: "does this feeling, for instance, belong to the other (para) or to you (atta)?
Sorry, I don't think I do understand. My view is that feelings (for example) doesn't belong to anyone. I don't see why it follows that something has to "own" the feeling.
ToVincent wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: ...the best course of action might be to simply agree that we currently have irreconcilable views.
Maybe,
But if you could answer the question:
"do you believe or not, in an atthi attakāro, and atthi parakāro (There is an action of 'one’s own', and there is an action done by 'other'?".
we could at least know on what ground you are standing.
A "yes" or "no" will do.
I'm not sure what you mean "believe or not". That sutta seems to be about speaking in conventional terms about how we can identify which being is acting. I think that mixing these statements with discussions about anatta ("not yours") is a mistake.

I don't believe I have anything more that I can add.

:anjali:
Mike

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by davidbrainerd » Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:17 pm

ToVincent wrote: May I remind you of this sutta:
Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism.
But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism.
SN 12.17
davidbrainerd wrote: Buddha is not saying we must accept the existence of both of these, but only that in order to be logical at least one of them must be accepted.
I would agree if he had clearly said so.
But what he said was about the middle way. That is to say there is suffering, and neither the "other", nor "oneself" is creating suffering on its own. But both Ignorance (the "other"/para,) and (the ignorance in) oneself (atta) are producing it. (read 22.47 for the latter - the element (expression/manifestation) of ignorance).
This is again the "neither from this, nor apart from this" concept.
And again, by abandoning willfully the sphere of senses, and the sphere of forms*, "you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two". You will have transcended the "that" and the "therein" [SN 35.95 (SA 312)].
Well I was going to bow out of this thread entirely but this sutta you bring up is too interesting. You seem to be saying that both the self and the other are producing suffering as some admixture. But the same sutta says a little earlier, the paragraph before what you quoted:
SN 12.17 wrote:"Now, when asked, 'Is stress self-made?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then is it other-made?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then is it both self-made and other-made?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then is it the case that stress, being neither self-made nor other-made, arises spontaneously?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then does stress not exist?' you say, 'It's not the case, Kassapa, that stress does not exist. Stress does exist.' When asked, 'Well, in that case, does Master Gotama not know or see stress?' you say, 'Kassapa, it's not the case that I don't know or see stress. I know stress. I see stress.' Then explain stress to me, lord Blessed One. Teach me about stress, lord Blessed One!"
Every position is being taken off the table here. Not only mine, but yours also, and everyone else's. This is no "middle way" being presented here. This is a "no way" being presented here.

I would argue the "middle way" is only about a middle way between extreme asceticism and indulgence, that middle "way" only has reference to "way" not to views, and that someone later tried unsuccessfully to extend it to views, bringing in extreme agnosticism in which nothing can be said...but I would argue that if it weren't off topic, so I'll forgoe.

(And with that I guess I am bowing out because anything I want to say will get offtopic.)

Actually, one more thing. The final answer being presented as Buddha's position in the closing verses is clearly the same as one already rejected by him in the same sutta, namely that suffering is neither self-made nor other-made but arises spontaneously. Thus the author makes Buddha contradict himself.

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Thought substitution vs. Observing feeling

Post by ToVincent » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:45 pm

davidbrainerd wrote:...
Made or produced might not have been the right words.

What is meant in SN 22.47 at the satta level (in saḷayatana,) is that when, for instance, you consider a khandha, like consciousness, as self (viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati), or self as possessing consciousness (viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ), or consciousness as in self (attani vā viññāṇaṃ), or self as in consciousness (viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ); this way of regarding things and the notion ‘I am’ (‘asmī’ti) has not vanished. As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties (indriyānaṃ avakkanti hoti). Then there is the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element (manifestation) of ignorance (avijjādhātu).
Obviously, the person who is appropriating the khandha is not "producing" ignorance. But "there is" the element (expression) of ignorance.
I could not find a word other than "produced" for this "there is".

Again, when I said that ignorance as "other" is "producing" ignorance; it is a figure of speech. You don't produce yourself. That's evident. Not in that case anyway.
You don't have to take everything to the letter.
I didn't have a better word than "made" or "produce", to express the fact that ignorance "is there" and that "there is" ignorance in the "other".
This Ignorance as avijja nidāna is just there with no cause. So sure it is not "produced", nor the "other" produces it.

However, the middle way is in seeing that "there is" suffering in both the "other" and in "you".
So, sorry about using the wrong terms to express it.
The pericope: "There is an action of 'one’s own', and there is an action done by 'other'?"" has made me mix both concepts a bit.
However, there is suffering in the "other", and because "you" "observe that feeling" (suffering) as yours, "there is" the manifestation (element) of ignorance proper to you.

What imports in this thread, is to understand that the khandhas (the feeling,) must be observed by the "action of one's one", as not being "his". And that the thought substitution, as a means to an escape, is another "action (among many others,) of one's one"; to transcend that ignorance, that is present (that "there is",) in both the "one's own", and the "other".

Sorry that I did confuse you. It's my fault; and I apologize.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Johnnymac and 91 guests