Hi George,hgg wrote:Hello to all,
... but the statement "What is unsatisfactory, that is not self", that I cannot understand. Does it mean that if there was a self, then that would be satisfactory, or, if there was something satisfactory, then that could be self ? How can he go from a to b, meaning that anything that is unsatisfactory, that is not self? Is there any logical or empirical explanation to reach that conclusion ?"Material form monks, is impermanent. Whatever is impermanent, that is unsatisfactory.
What is unsatisfactory, that is not self. What is not self, should be regarded, 'This is not
mine, I am not this, this is not my self.' One should discern it as it really is through perfect
wisdom." - S.iii.21
That is how I interpret it; If there was a self, it would be satisfactory.
Unfortunately whatever is impermanent is unsatisfactory and therefore not-self and this includes rupa (material form) and the other aggregates.
This talk might help:
http://archive.org/details/DeanHayson-T ... atIsReborn
When we "see things as they really are" we understand that all "things" are just impersonal processes, including an impersonal process which is often mistaken as atta (self).
Regards,
Troy