Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

On the cultivation of insight/wisdom

Is Wri Right?

Yes!
6
50%
No!
3
25%
No, and allow me to explain why.
3
25%
 
Total votes: 12

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23045
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by tiltbillings » Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:25 pm

Bundokji wrote:I can't be sure, but the "i got it" feeling can be the beginning of grasping.
One very well may have gotten something of value, and one may then grasp onto it. In light of this, I do like this story:

  • After only a year and a half of practice at Wat Ba Pong, one American [Jack Kornfield] asked and received permission [from Ajahn Chah] to travel and study with other Thai and Burmese teachers. A year or two later, he returned full of tales of his travels, of many months of extraordinary and intensive practice and of a number of remarkable experiences. . . . Then the Western monk went to the cottage of Achaan Sumedho, the senior Western disciple of Achaan Chah, and told all his stories and adventures, his new understandings and great insights into practice. Sumedho listened in silence and prepared afternoon tea from the roots of certain forest plants. When the stories were completed and the insights recounted, Sumedho smiled and said, "Ah, how wonderful. Something else to let go of."
>> 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
Bundokji
Posts: 2614
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by Bundokji » Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:57 pm

Thanks for sharing the story tilt :anjali:
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Kamran
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by Kamran » Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:56 pm

Don't kill The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs is an idiom I use to remind myself not to get distracted by insights that come up in the practice but to stick with the process that generates insights.
"Silence gives answers"

Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi

Herbie
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by Herbie » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:01 pm

Wri wrote:What are your thoughts on this? Am I understanding non-self correctly or have I gone full bonkers?
"Correctly" can only refer to a given convention and that certainly is Theravada convention in your case. So those having fully understood and adopted Theravada convention should assess whether your expressions comply.
Inspiration is based on the exchange of different linguistic expressions. But inspiration is best knowing how language relates to truth. :smile:

practitioner
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:30 pm

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by practitioner » Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:05 pm

The author of A Map of Journey emphasizes insight instead of thinking.

Since insight to "not-self" cannot be attained through thinking or intellectualizing, try not to think about not-self. Let vipassana lead you to the realization of not-self. Too much thinking hinders meditation.

When realized, your mind will automatically operate the way a not-Self mind would operate.

Janalanda
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:29 pm

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by Janalanda » Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:36 pm

it must come naturally through deep meditative insight..or quantum physics :P If it doesn't reduce suffering, then it's not worth pursuing...the Buddha did advise not to spend too long on questions you can't answer.
There are many question that are useless but this is not at all one of them. In fact, contemplation about this topic is said to be the reason for achieving stream-entry http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/stud ... tream.html
What I seem to be intellectually stuck on, is how certain atoms come together in an attempt to survive, but others do not, such as those in a rock which simply come together. This force ("clinging, craving") separates living from the non-living. However, I do not see this force as something that a person can look at and see directly at least not with an unenlightened mind. I wouldn't say it's permanent either because this force would be extinguished upon parinibbana. At any rate, it can hardly be said to be an inherent self because it can easily be created by other causes and conditions.
They "come together" in an attempt to survive through the process of Pratītyasamutpāda. But they don't actually "come together" because they were like that from the beginning. The self been "attached" to the body is not something that happened at a certain point. Things are like that from the beginning.

And the rocks, trees, bodies that you see are not real either. They are just phenomenons that appeared and ceased according to conditions. But you still assume there is something "solid" behind a thought, something "solid" behind the seen. This means you should continue to contemplate the subject until:
" In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

R1111 = rightviewftw
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by R1111 = rightviewftw » Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:39 pm

Wri wrote:Hello all,

As I see it, everything is just a collection of impermanent parts interacting together. There is no "person" or inherent entity in there, just parts interacting. What makes these parts come together to form something living as opposed to a rock for example, is the force of craving, which is conditioned and when the aggregates separate at death, this craving goes on to bring more aggregates together in certain ways based on it's kamma. Consciousness, thoughts, awareness, etc, are all just parts of this grand, moving, mosaic we call life. Nothing has an inherent existence since each part is connected to, affects, and depends on the other parts.
It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself when you say that everything is a collection of impermanent "parts" yet differentiating between a living thing and a rock. Which also makes me wonder what you mean by parts and if you are postulating a sort of existing of these parts.
Wri wrote: What are your thoughts on this? Am I understanding non-self correctly or have I gone full bonkers?
My thoughts are that there is only experience of conventional reality (concepts). Things are not ultimately real. One shouldnt really think about Anatta too much and certainly not form any views. You cant truly understand either impermanence, suffering or non-self without becoming enlightened. So when you think i think i understand either of those, ask yourself if you are enlightened, if not then you probably dont quite get it yet.

Saoshun
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:59 pm

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by Saoshun » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:40 am

You do not understand no-self correctly. The only way to understand no self is to realize it before understanding.
Remember… the Buddha had said that everyone living in this world is crazy, by the phrase, “Sabbē prutajjana ummattakā”; excluding the Arahants, everyone else is crazy. Would you get angry if a mad person scolds? Do we get angry for a crazy thing done by a crazy person? Just think about it! :candle:

practitioner
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:30 pm

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by practitioner » Sat Aug 20, 2016 2:58 pm

I understand why you are trying to intellectualize not-self. It is fine, but ultimately not-self is not knowledge you can possess. It is experiential knowledge to be attained via practice. Knowing cannot change our ways but experiencing it will change our ways.

User avatar
bodom
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by bodom » Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:25 pm

If you can't understand non self then at least try too understand non selfishness.

:namaste:
The heart of the path is so simple. No need for long explanations. Give up clinging to love and hate, just rest with things as they are. That is all I do in my own practice.

Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing.

Of course, there are dozens of meditation techniques to develop samadhi and many kinds of vipassana. But it all comes back to this-just let it all be. Step over here where it is cool, out of the battle.

- Ajahn Chah

spacenick
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:31 pm

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by spacenick » Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:51 am

when the aggregates separate at death, this craving goes on to bring more aggregates together in certain ways based on it's kamma. Consciousness, thoughts, awareness, etc, are all just parts of this grand, moving, mosaic we call life
What I understand from this is that you seem to be thinking that there are actual aggregates "out there", and that these parts have inherent existence (and that, okay, maybe the self is illusional, but still made of these 'real' parts that connect together in a grand mosaic)

We always end up debating about existence vs non-existence. But as far as we're concerned, there's just the interplay of consciousness with nama/rupa. Sensory input & perception. Have a look at the Bahiya Sutta

That's also the very reason why we are all here. Because we have taken a stand (a ditthi) about our existence. And that's why the best ditthi to counteract any ditthi is samma ditthi: the view that every thing is inconstant, therefore painful. Something that is painful (dukkha) is out of control. Something that is out of control cannot possibly one's self. It is a ditthi that destroys itself in the last analysis (it is extremely light).

Keep at it!

:anjali:

Maarten
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:14 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by Maarten » Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:09 pm

The best way to understand it is: all the Khandas are out of control.
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic

With metta,

Maarten

User avatar
Chula
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:58 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

Post by Chula » Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:06 pm

I think this might be a relevant for you:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... self2.html

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests