Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

ground wrote:But that is not the point here in this context. Having not experienced dependent origination of what is called "self" you still may think about or discuss about "self" endlessly. But all you are thinking and discussing about are just abstractions of wavering thoughts. That is why it has been said that one should know what one is talking about and "You should know your experience and how can you know by means of arguments instead of observation?"

What level of advancement would you say you have attained?

Alex123 wrote:How it stands up to current empiric observation.

In that case, you are still depending on someone else to tell you what to think.

Science operates by facts and evidence. Religious faith says "believe us" and provides no solid logic and evidence.

I guess philosophy of science isn't your forte ...

5heaps wrote:if the person is equivalent to the parts then since those parts are momentary (ie. they cannot magically endure into a second moment) the person too must end at that time

You are right about equivalency to the parts. But what if some posit a self that is NOT equivalent to momentary parts, but has them?

Some can speculate that: Self can experience pleasant and unpleasant feelings, but self is not specific momentary pleasant/unpleasant feeling, thus with cessation of the feeling, self does not cease.

binocular wrote:

ground wrote:But that is not the point here in this context. Having not experienced dependent origination of what is called "self" you still may think about or discuss about "self" endlessly. But all you are thinking and discussing about are just abstractions of wavering thoughts. That is why it has been said that one should know what one is talking about and "You should know your experience and how can you know by means of arguments instead of observation?"

What level of advancement would you say you have attained?

Question not applicable.

Alex123,
What is the advantage of developing this doctrine of self which you propose as opposed to having no doctrine of self as proposed by the Buddha?
chownah

The only meaning of the self is experiences and only experiences is worth for the seeking of self.

Is self permanent or changing moment by moment? Not worth it

Here is what self is: Do you know pain? Do you know pleasure? That is where you can talk about self. Without pain and pleasure, what is the point of yourself and finding it? A self in vague space just for the sake of knowledge?

What if self continues to exist without any feeling? What? There is no point in discussing a self like that.

If there is a thing that exists outside of universe and there is no way to contact and measure it, then how to prove its existence/ non existence and what is the point of doing that?

What is the point of finding yourself without any feelings?

Sometimes problem can only be solved in the big picture. For instance, a man needs a house, so he collects material and tool to build it. But he keeps focus too much on his current purpose so that he forgot that he needs a house, he only goal is to find and collect material to build a house. But doing that is very hard, material is rare so he keeps trying and trying without success. If he remember the big picture, he only needs them for the house, he can bypass the collecting material, but choose to buy a house which is far easier than build new one.

Similar to that, people seek happiness. Then they discuss about everything and seek every manner. Some try to seek a self for some reason, but it is too hard. If they remember that finding a self is only a step in seeking happiness, then they can bypass that part and finding happiness directly.

These are undeniable facts:
There are feelings: pain and pleasure
There will be feelings in the future: pain or pleasure

If one knows pain and pleasure and their value, then one should ask, how can I have more pleasure and less pain, with or without self, this is a better manner. Happiness is the only thing worth it.

chownah wrote:What is the advantage of developing this doctrine of self which you propose as opposed to having no doctrine of self as proposed by the Buddha?

Given that the Buddhist schools (and individuals) tend to have less or more different stances in matters of self, while all claim that the stance they promote was proposed by the Buddha, it is hard to tell what the Buddha actually proposed.
Discussions on this topic can also get quite fierce.

Already considering this, it's not surprising that people want to find their own doctrine about the self that would make sense.

whynotme wrote:/.../
Similar to that, people seek happiness. Then they discuss about everything and seek every manner. Some try to seek a self for some reason, but it is too hard. If they remember that finding a self is only a step in seeking happiness, then they can bypass that part and finding happiness directly.

These are undeniable facts:
There are feelings: pain and pleasure
There will be feelings in the future: pain or pleasure

If one knows pain and pleasure and their value, then one should ask, how can I have more pleasure and less pain, with or without self, this is a better manner. Happiness is the only thing worth it.

This is all fine and well in the abstract, but not in practice, at least as long as this "in practice" means functioning in the Western world and earning enough money to support oneself. Because our Western culture is deeply intertwined with notions of self, and if one doesn't play along, one will become an outcast.

Sure, one can pretend to play along, and speak of oneself the way other people speak of themselves and so on; but after a while, this duplicity can become unbearable, or one can't do it right anymore and becomes awkward ...

Alex123 wrote:

5heaps wrote:if the person is equivalent to the parts then since those parts are momentary (ie. they cannot magically endure into a second moment) the person too must end at that time

You are right about equivalency to the parts. But what if some posit a self that is NOT equivalent to momentary parts, but has them?

Some can speculate that: Self can experience pleasant and unpleasant feelings, but self is not specific momentary pleasant/unpleasant feeling, thus with cessation of the feeling, self does not cease.

theres no problem with saying that the self ie. the person experiences momentary feelings. the problem is the innate tendency which then sees the self/person as independent of those parts, possesses those parts, *has* those parts. thats what the nonbuddhists call an atman, and its what buddhists uniquely negate without turning to nihilism ie. person dont exist.

The Atman Asserted by the Samkhya and Nyaya Schools That Buddhism Refutes

Alex123 wrote:But river can be the same river even if it has different instances of water flowing through it.

Hi Alex123,

and exactly here my friend a mistake is being made. A river is never the same river. What persists as being considered the same river is just an idea about a river made up from various conditions. That idea is believed to be more or less permanent as long as one fails to see that those conditions which constitute the idea are actually changing. One can certainly talk about one and the same river conventionally, accepting to ignore reality as it happens in favor of conversational reasons or others but the more one wants to talk about reality as it is one has to pay attention even to the slightest changes. It's a matter of mindfulness (sati) and 'thorough attention' or wise consideration' (yoniso manasikāra) to not neglect impermanence.

best wishes, acinteyyo

acinteyyo wrote:

Alex123 wrote:But river can be the same river even if it has different instances of water flowing through it.

Hi Alex123,

and exactly here my friend a mistake is being made. A river is never the same river. What persists as being considered the same river is just an idea about a river made up from various conditions. That idea is believed to be more or less permanent as long as one fails to see that those conditions which constitute the idea are actually changing. One can certainly talk about one and the same river conventionally, accepting to ignore reality as it happens in favor of conversational reasons or others but the more one wants to talk about reality as it is one has to pay attention even to the slightest changes. It's a matter of mindfulness (sati) and 'thorough attention' or wise consideration' (yoniso manasikāra) to not neglect impermanence.

best wishes, acinteyyo

Some things are relatively more stable than others. My chair persists longer in a very similar form that the water flowing down the drain, hence the chair is considered an object that the water flowing down the drain, not. The real aspect is the fact that the assembly of molecules held together by various forces, supported by the floor, that is my chair, degrades and decomposes relatively slowly and is able to support me as a chair for some time to come.

The self is similar. Held together by memories including the memory of the experiencer present in ever event, it is ever-changing but there is a relative stability and a continuity that is temporary and not fixed, but not just imagined.

If the sense of the experiencer is relinquished, what is the self then? There is still a continuity of experience, a stream distinct to another, but it is no more that a bunch of conditions that tie these experiences to a particular mind/brain, itself constantly changing. Just like a chair, but even more changeable.

Hello Acinteyyo, (and all),

acinteyyo wrote:and exactly here my friend a mistake is being made

You are probably right. In any case, I should focus on seeing arising and ceasing of dukkha.

Alex123 wrote: Science operates by facts and evidence. Religious faith says "believe us" and provides no solid logic and evidence.

Yes, but these facts and evidences sustain upon conditions: the consensus among scientists or observers about consistency of data and results. Such consensus is not fundamentally different from the consensus among two people about some other experiential phenomena.

Hi Alex123

Alex123 wrote:... I should focus on seeing arising and ceasing of dukkha.

yes, as you know that after awakening, the Buddha teached first the 4 Noble Truths (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta) which concerned dukkha, its arising, its ceasing, and the way of ceasing dukkha.

At the end of this first teaching, only the Venerable Kodanna attained stream-entry sotapanna. It was the day of the full moon in July. The four other companions still needed practice. Finally, thanks to the direct instructions of the Buddha, the 4 Venerable Vappa, Bhaddhiya, Mahanama and Assaji obtained sotapanna respectively the first, second, third and fourth day of the waning moon.

Only from the fifth day that the Buddha gave the Anattalakkhana Sutta and at the end of the speech, the five became Arahant.

So the Buddha delivered the Anatta teaching only after the five Venerable had uprooted the first false view of the self in a body and had no doubt in the Buddha teaching.

best wishes