From "not mine" follows "not yours"

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by acinteyyo »

Hey,

I contemplated the Buddha's utterance to Rahula in MN62:
Rahula, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near:
every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"

"Just form, O Blessed One? Just form, O One Well-gone?"

"Form, Rahula, & feeling & perception & fabrications & consciousness
Please forgive me, because I'm a bit at loss for words to describe this adequately.

Seeing any of the aggregates as 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' directly leads to the realization that in the same way any of the aggregates is to be seen as "This is not yours. This is not your self. This is not what you are.".

If one assumes the aggregates to be "not mine, not my self, not what I am' but is still assuming any of them to possibly be "yours, your self or what you are" then he or she is still thinking in terms of appropriation. He or she then still regards certain things as self and assumes "a being".

This would lead to the realisation that there is in fact only one set of each of the different aggregates, one accumulation of forms, one accumulation of feelings, one accumulation of perception and so on. Not many, not your aggregates, my aggregates, other or noone's aggregates.

In day to day experience it seems as though as there are "my" aggregates (one particular set of aggregates that constitute "my being") and then there are the aggregates "of others". From there I usued to assume for example that "my feelings" are somehow disconnected from the "feelings of others" (the same applies for any of the aggregates), but actually what I considered "my feelings" "lies" on the very same heap of feelings like all the other feelings I considered "belonging to others" (same applies for any of the aggregates again).

This arbitrary separation (mine/yours) not only creates the notion of "I am this" but also "this is yours", which actually is nothing but a "this is mine" in disguise of "being another", but still is wrong appropriation.

Experience as a whole starts to change from the core with glimpses based on that perspective, because personality-view or in other words, the point of view of a person, starts to disintegrate.

The common experience of "being someone in the wold experiencing myself, others and other things" transforms into a vague experience of different connected conglomerations that interact in dependece to each other.

The relative meanings of "yours", "mine" or "a person" and "a being" remain, because the knowledge what these terms are supposed to signify remains, but with seeing the underlying "realities", which are packed together in desperate desire, the believe of indipendence of the implication those terms try to signify, which is the believe in a self, gradually looses its plausibility.

I hope this post can convey the message I try to share.
Thoughts?

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by SDC »

This is why mettā, karuṇā, muditā, upekkhā are so important to develop: extending to others that very same concern and understanding you have for your own situation. You include others in that manner of regarding experience. The way I understand it, eventually this diminishes the significance of self and the importance of self though dissolving it into others. You literally give away that self-priority by no longer limiting it to “me”. The self starts to lose footing when such an attitude is developed making it much easier to apply the knowledge of not self. Without it, you end up relentlessly trying to apply not-self to an entrenched sense of self: not going to happen.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
katavedi
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:42 pm

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by katavedi »

Hello acinteyyo,

This is how I see it too. If the aggregates are seen as they really are (this is not mine, this is not my self, this is not what I am), then the sense of a subject to whom experience is happening disappears. When there is no subject, how can there be an object? In other words, with no subject, there is no longer any separation from "objects". I believe this is the same thing that you were saying, though I'm using "subject" and "object" for "mine" and "yours".

Also with no subject there is no locus, no "here". With no "here", there is no "there", nor is there an "in-between". I believe this is what the Buddha was referring to in his brief teaching to Bahiya:

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two." (Ud. 1.10)

With metta,
katavedi
“But, Gotamī, when you know of certain things: ‘These things lead to dispassion, not to passion; to detachment, not to attachment; to diminution, not to accumulation; to having few wishes, not to having many wishes; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to socializing; to the arousing of energy, not to indolence; to simple living, not to luxurious living’ – of such things you can be certain: ‘This is the Dhamma; this is the Discipline; this is the Master’s Teaching.’”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by mikenz66 »

Well said acinteyyo. Consider also:
“What, bhikkhu, is the earth element? The earth element may be either internal or external. What is the internal earth element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to, that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to: this is called the internal earth element. Now both the internal earth element and the external earth element are simply earth element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the earth element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the earth element.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn140
In this way they meditate by observing an aspect of the body inside; they meditate by observing an aspect of the body outside; they meditate by observing an aspect of the body inside and outside.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn10/17
And what I tried to summarise in this thread:
Fundamentally, there is the arising of phenomena due to causes and conditions. We, and Gotama, before he became the Buddha, interpret those phenomena in terms of "beings". This is due to an improper understanding of causality and anatta.
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=25646
There are these phenomena going on. We misinterpret them as me, mine, you, yours...

:anjali:
Mike
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by JohnK »

SDC wrote:This is why mettā, karuṇā, muditā, upekkhā are so important to develop: ...Without it, you end up relentlessly trying to apply not-self to an entrenched sense of self: not going to happen.
Bam :!: This makes sense/feels right.
The brahma vihara practices and seeing into anatta -- mutually deepening.
(Sometimes I need a reminder -- thanks.)
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by acinteyyo »

katavedi wrote:Hello acinteyyo,

This is how I see it too. If the aggregates are seen as they really are (this is not mine, this is not my self, this is not what I am), then the sense of a subject to whom experience is happening disappears. When there is no subject, how can there be an object? In other words, with no subject, there is no longer any separation from "objects". I believe this is the same thing that you were saying, though I'm using "subject" and "object" for "mine" and "yours".

Also with no subject there is no locus, no "here". With no "here", there is no "there", nor is there an "in-between". I believe this is what the Buddha was referring to in his brief teaching to Bahiya:

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two." (Ud. 1.10)

With metta,
katavedi
Yes, katavedi, seems about right. I also had the Bahiya Sutta in mind, one of my favourite suttas.

I guess the reason I didn't choose "subject/object" is because for me it doesn't cover the entire range of the experience I'm trying to explain. What you call "Subject and object" for me is more comparable to "me and you" rather than "not mine/ not yours". I agree with you, when you say without subject there cannot be an object, however what I tried to point out goes further. With the understanding that the aggregates are not mine, aren't what I am, comes the understanding that the aggregates also aren't what you are.

In simple words but not equally acurate, with the cessation of "my personality" also ceases "your personality" "for me", although, if you still are a puthujana (only as an example, I'm not implying anything here), your "being" (being somebody, a person) remains the same for you, while I only see craving and ignorance in work, but do not assume "a being" anymore.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by acinteyyo »

mikenz66 wrote: There are these phenomena going on. We misinterpret them as me, mine, you, yours...
Exactly, Mike
:thumbsup:
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by acinteyyo »

SDC wrote:This is why mettā, karuṇā, muditā, upekkhā are so important to develop: extending to others that very same concern and understanding you have for your own situation. You include others in that manner of regarding experience. The way I understand it, eventually this diminishes the significance of self and the importance of self though dissolving it into others. You literally give away that self-priority by no longer limiting it to “me”. The self starts to lose footing when such an attitude is developed making it much easier to apply the knowledge of not self. Without it, you end up relentlessly trying to apply not-self to an entrenched sense of self: not going to happen.
Your post surprised me the most. I fail to see the proper connection you probably had in mind. Could you please elaborate?
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Thisperson
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:36 pm

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by Thisperson »

acinteyyo wrote:This would lead to the realisation that there is in fact only one set of each of the different aggregates, one accumulation of forms, one accumulation of feelings, one accumulation of perception and so on. Not many, not your aggregates, my aggregates, other or noone's aggregates.

In day to day experience it seems as though as there are "my" aggregates (one particular set of aggregates that constitute "my being") and then there are the aggregates "of others". From there I usued to assume for example that "my feelings" are somehow disconnected from the "feelings of others" (the same applies for any of the aggregates), but actually what I considered "my feelings" "lies" on the very same heap of feelings like all the other feelings I considered "belonging to others" (same applies for any of the aggregates again).
How does this idea deal with different sentient beings having different bodies. Different bodies will lead to different sense contacts and feelings. An obese person could feel a warm day as "very hot" while a skinny person could feel the same warm day as pleasant. Different past (and present) kamma will lead to different mental reactions in different beings as well. How does this idea of one accumulation of each aggregate coexist with the notion of different beings and their respective kamma? The aggregates are not self, but that does not negate the fact that there are still beings in various states of becoming dependent on their own kamma, no?
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by SarathW »

I feel that Mike's answer is the most appropriate one.
Seen five aggregate as internal and external is an aspect of Satipathana.
Even though we see different aggregates they all fall under five aggregate.
Last edited by SarathW on Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
dagon
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by dagon »

acinteyyo wrote:
SDC wrote:This is why mettā, karuṇā, muditā, upekkhā are so important to develop: extending to others that very same concern and understanding you have for your own situation. You include others in that manner of regarding experience. The way I understand it, eventually this diminishes the significance of self and the importance of self though dissolving it into others. You literally give away that self-priority by no longer limiting it to “me”. The self starts to lose footing when such an attitude is developed making it much easier to apply the knowledge of not self. Without it, you end up relentlessly trying to apply not-self to an entrenched sense of self: not going to happen.
Your post surprised me the most. I fail to see the proper connection you probably had in mind. Could you please elaborate?
If he is coming at this from the same direction as I did, then mettā, karuṇā, muditā, upekkhā broadens / generalises the (at the level realisation that one has achieved) to others. This has a number of out comes. Firstly it further weakens one own sense of "self", Secondly it assists to move from a position where 'A person has suffering" to the position of 'there is suffering". Thirdly negative emotion (ie hate) tend to be focused on an individual or group of individual - where the is realisation of not-self extending to others then such emotions are harder to formulate and maintain. As he said the concept of self is continually trying to reassert its self - mettā, karuṇā, muditā, upekkhā leave less space for this to occur. My view at this time!

metta
dagon













'
'
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by SarathW »

Agree.
Practicing Brhamavihara is a result of understanding internal and external.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by SDC »

acinteyyo wrote:
SDC wrote:This is why mettā, karuṇā, muditā, upekkhā...
Your post surprised me the most. I fail to see the proper connection you probably had in mind. Could you please elaborate?
To be honest, it was one of the first things that occurred to me to when I saw the comparison of "myself" and "others".

I find that there is less to consider about the nature of others (or the aggregates of others) when the brahma viharas are employed. In a way, as our own sense of self begins to wane, so does the idea that others have established selves. Sort of an incidental insight compared to that of the personal realization of not self, but it was what I had in mind.

I am under the impression that we are referring to the same thing but just saying it in different ways.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by SDC »

SarathW wrote:Even though we see different aggregates they all fall under five aggregate.
Bam!
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: From "not mine" follows "not yours"

Post by pegembara »

Hi katavedi,
This is how I see it too. If the aggregates are seen as they really are (this is not mine, this is not my self, this is not what I am), then the sense of a subject to whom experience is happening disappears. When there is no subject, how can there be an object? In other words, with no subject, there is no longer any separation from "objects". I believe this is the same thing that you were saying, though I'm using "subject" and "object" for "mine" and "yours".

Also with no subject there is no locus, no "here". With no "here", there is no "there", nor is there an "in-between". I believe this is what the Buddha was referring to in his brief teaching to Bahiya:

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two." (Ud. 1.10)
If one maintains the position of witnessing the aggregates("God's" view/the one who knows/Buddhanature), that sense of a subject to whom experience is happening disappears. And if we all look out from the position of knowing, then it follows that there is nothing that is ours, "not mine. not yours, not theirs."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only cautionary note is not to make too much of this and create an absolute(atman/God) out of this.


Regards
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Post Reply